A new report states that a proposed 750-megawatt coal-fired power plant in northeast Waterloo could jeopardize the health of thousands of people living or working in or near Waterloo's northeast industrial area, including employees of the city's two largest manufacturers, John Deere and Tyson.
The report recommends the county Board of Health support a statewide moratorium on building permits for coal power plants until the state enacts more stringent air pollution control measures. Such suggestions, if enacted, could kill LS Power's proposal for a 750-megawatt coal power plant in northeast Waterloo.
The report, authored by William Stigliani, was presented this morning to the Black Hawk County Board of Health. Stigliani is director of University of Northern Iowa's Center for Energy and Environmental Education, but worked on the study as a private consultant. The report concentrated on the proposed plant's emissions of particulate matter - tiny airborne pollutants created by things like dirt and soot.
Particulates have been linked to asthma, bronchitis, heart attacks and other pulmonary diseases, including thousands of premature deaths each year.
"A 750 megawatt coal-fired power plant is a large emitter of particulate matter," Stigliani wrote. "For a plant located several miles east of the city of Waterloo, emissions will add to already high PM (particulate matter) concentrations and add to the a ready existing risk of pulmonary and cardiovascular disease prevalent in the county. "Individual risk will be highest for county residents living or working in close proximity to the plant," Stigliani wrote.
Approximately 1,100 people live, and 6,500 people work, within a 6-square-mile area around the site. John Deere's East Donald Street Tractor Works and the Tyson Fresh Meats plant are in close proximity to the proposed power plant site.
The report counters LS Power's common defense of the plant's emissions - that modern plants are much cleaner than older ones and meet federal pollution standards - by pointing out federal standards set nearly two years ago by the EPA went against expert recommendations from both inside and outside the agency. After the decision, the EPA was widely criticized and accused of putting politics ahead of science.
The report explained in detail that recommendations for more stringent particulate limits were made by a range of scientists, including a 12-member independent panel of experts from several specialties tapped by the EPA to study the issue.
Stigliani argues most scientists agree adverse health effects exist well below the federal standards, and the Black Hawk County Health Department should advocate that Iowa enact California's annual average particulate matter standards. The federal annual average standard for fine particles - 15 micrograms per cubic meter - remain unchanged since 1997. The California Air Resources Board set its state's annual limit at 12 micrograms per cubic meter.
The report also notes African-Americans in Black Hawk County, already 30 percent more likely to be hospitalized for asthma than other Iowans, may suffer disproportionately from the proposed plant's pollutants.
One of the power plant's leading opponents, Cedar Falls City Council member Kamyar Enshayan, also works in the CEEE at UNI. But Stigliani, unlike Enshayan, has not actively participated in any public activities opposing the plant.
Stigliani also has said any CEEE employees taking such a position have done so individually and not on behalf of CEEE. LS Power has not participated in some public forums on the power plant at the CEEE or included involvement by its staff individually.
Elk Run Energy Associates, a subsidiary of New Jersey-headquartered LS Power, has donated a half million dollars to two organizations that work in Waterloo's black community - KBBG-FM and Highway 63 Gateway Community Development Corp.
The report's other recommendations include:
- Black Hawk County Board of Health should administer its own air quality monitoring program, in conjunction with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Iowa Department of Public Health.
- Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Iowa Department of Public Health should incorporate public health standards in the permitting, compliance and regulatory process governing Iowa air standards.
Global Renewable LCOE Trends reveal offshore wind costs down 32%, with 10MW turbines, lower CAPEX and OPEX, and parity for solar PV and onshore wind in Europe, China, and California, per BloombergNEF analysis.
Key Points
Benchmarks showing falling LCOE for offshore wind, onshore wind, and solar PV, driven by larger turbines and lower CAPEX
✅ Offshore wind LCOE $78/MWh; $53-64/MWh in DK/NL excl. transmission
✅ Onshore wind $47/MWh; solar PV $51/MWh, best $26-36/MWh
✅ Cost drivers: 10MW turbines, lower CAPEX/OPEX, weak China demand
World offshore wind costs have fallen 32% from just a year ago and 12% compared with the first half of 2019, according to a BNEF long-term outlook from BloombergNEF.
In its latest Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) Update, BloombergNEF said its current global benchmark LCOE estimate for offshore wind is $78 a megawatt-hour.
“New offshore wind projects throughout Europe, including the UK's build-out, now deploy turbines with power ratings up to 10MW, unlocking CAPEX and OPEX savings,” BloombergNEF said.
In Denmark and the Netherlands, it expects the most recent projects financed to achieve $53-64/MWh excluding transmission.
New solar and onshore wind projects have reached parity with average wholesale power prices in California and parts of Europe, while in China levelised costs are below the benchmark average regulated coal price, according to BloombergNEF.
The company's global benchmark levelized cost figures for onshore wind and PV projects financed in the last six months are at $47 and $51 a megawatt-hours, underscoring that renewables are now the cheapest new electricity option in many regions, down 6% and 11% respectively compared with the first half of 2019.
BloombergNEF said for wind this is mainly down to a fall in the price of turbines – 7% lower on average globally compared with the end of 2018.
In China, the world’s largest solar market, the CAPEX of utility-scale PV plants has dropped 11% in the last six months, reaching $0.57m per MW.
“Weak demand for new plants in China has left developers and engineering, procurement and construction firms eager for business, and this has put pressure on CAPEX,” BloombergNEF said.
It added that estimates of the cheapest PV projects financed recently – in India, Chile and Australia – will be able to achieve an LCOE of $27-36/MWh, assuming competitive returns for their equity investors.
Best-in-class onshore wind farms in Brazil, India, Mexico and Texas can reach levelized costs as low as $26-31/MWh already, the research said.
Programs such as the World Bank wind program are helping developing countries accelerate wind deployment as costs continue to drop.
BloombergNEF associate in the energy economics team Tifenn Brandily said: “This is a three- stage process. In phase one, new solar and wind get cheaper than new gas and coal plants on a cost-of- energy basis.
“In phase two, renewables reach parity with power prices. In phase three, they become even cheaper than running existing thermal plants.
“Our analysis shows that phase one has now been reached for two-thirds of the global population.
“Phase two started with California, China and parts of Europe. We expect phase three to be reached on a global scale by 2030.
“As this all plays out, thermal power plants will increasingly be relegated to a balancing role, looking for opportunities to generate when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.”
WEC Energy Blooming Grove Investment underscores Midwest renewable energy growth, with Invenergy, GE turbines, and 250 MW wind power capacity, tax credits, PPAs, and utility-scale generation supplying corporate offtakers via long-term contracts.
Key Points
It is WEC Energy's $345M purchase of an 80% stake in Invenergy's 250 MW Blooming Grove wind farm in Illinois.
✅ 94 GE turbines; 250 MW utility-scale wind capacity
✅ Output contracted to two multinational offtakers
✅ Eligible for 100% bonus depreciation and wind tax credits
WEC Energy Group, the parent company of We Energies, is buying an 80% stake in a wind farm, as seen with projects like Enel's 450 MW wind farm coming online, in McLean County, Illinois, for $345 million.
The wind farm, known as the Blooming Grove Wind Farm, is being developed by Invenergy, which recently completed the largest North American wind build with GE partners, a company based in Chicago that develops wind, solar and other power projects. WEC Energy has invested in several wind farms developed by Invenergy.
With the agreement announced Monday, WEC Energy will have invested more than $1.2 billion in wind farms in the Midwest, echoing heartland investment growth across the region. The power from the wind farms is sold to other utilities or companies, as federal initiatives like DOE wind awards continue to support innovation, and the projects are separate from the investments made by WEC Energy's regulated utilities, such as We Energies, in wind power.
The project, which will consist of 94 wind turbines from General Electric, is expected to be completed this year, similar to recent project operations in the sector, and will have a capacity of 250 megawatts, WEC said in a news release.
Affiliates of two undisclosed multinational companies akin to EDF's offshore investment activity have contracted to take all of the wind farm's output.
The investment is expected to be eligible for 100% bonus depreciation and, as wind economics help illustrate key trends, the tax credits available for wind projects, WEC Energy said.
U.S. Utility-Scale Solar Delays driven by the coronavirus pandemic threaten construction timelines, supply chains, and financing, with interconnection and commissioning setbacks, module sourcing risks in Southeast Asia, and tax credit deadline pressures impacting project delivery.
Key Points
Setbacks to large U.S. solar builds from COVID-19 impacting construction, supply, financing, and permitting.
✅ Construction, interconnection, commissioning site visits delayed
✅ Supply chain risks for modules from Southeast Asia
✅ Tax credit deadline extensions sought by developers
About 5 gigawatts (GW) of big U.S. solar energy projects, enough to power nearly 1 million homes, could suffer delays this year if construction is halted for months due to the coronavirus pandemic, as the Covid-19 crisis hits renewables across the sector, according to a report published on Wednesday.
The forecast, a worst-case scenario laid out in an analysis by energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, would amount to about a third of the utility-scale solar capacity expected to be installed in the United States this year, even as US solar and wind growth continues under favorable plans.
The report comes two weeks after the head of the top U.S. solar trade group called the coronavirus pandemic (as solar jobs decline nationwide) "a crisis here" for the industry. Solar and wind companies are pleading with Congress to extend deadlines for projects to qualify for sunsetting federal tax credits.
Even the firm’s best-case scenario would result in substantial delays, mirroring concerns that wind investments at risk across the industry. With up to four weeks of disruption, the outbreak will push out 2 GW of projects, or enough to power about 380,000 homes. Before factoring in the impact of the coronavirus, Wood Mackenzie had forecast 14.7 GW of utility-scale solar projects would be installed this year.
In its report, the firm said the projects are unlikely to be canceled outright. Rather, they will be pushed into the second half of 2020 or 2021. The analysis assumes that virus-related disruptions subside by the end of the third quarter.
Mid-stage projects that still have to secure financing and receive supplies are at the highest risk, Wood Mackenzie analyst Colin Smith said in an interview, adding that it was too soon to know whether the pandemic would end up altering long-term electricity demand and therefore utility procurement plans, where policy shifts such as an ITC extension could reshape priorities.
Currently, restricted travel is the most likely cause of project delays, the report said. Developers expect delays in physical site visits for interconnection and commissioning, and workers have had difficulty reaching remote construction sites.
For earlier-stage projects, municipal offices that process permits are closed and in-person meetings between developers and landowners or local officials have slowed down.
Most solar construction is proceeding despite stay at home orders in many states because it is considered critical infrastructure, and long-term proposals like a tenfold increase in solar could reshape the outlook, the report said, adding that “that could change with time.”
Risks to supplies of solar modules include potential manufacturing shutdowns in key producing nations in Southeast Asia such as Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand. Thus far, solar module production has been identified as an essential business and has been allowed to continue.
Germany Nuclear Power Extension debated as Olaf Scholz weighs energy crisis, gas shortages from Russia, slow grid expansion in Bavaria, and renewables delays; stress test results may guide policy alongside coal plant reactivations.
Key Points
A proposal to delay Germany's nuclear phaseout to stabilize power supply amid gas cuts and slow grid upgrades.
✅ Driven by Russia gas cuts and Nord Stream 1 curtailment
The German chancellor on Wednesday said it might make sense to extend the lifetime of Germany's three remaining nuclear power plants.
Germany famously decided to stop using atomic energy in 2011, and the last remaining plants were set to close at the end of this year.
However, an increasing number of politicians have been arguing for the postponement of the closures amid energy concerns arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The issue divides members of Scholz's ruling traffic-light coalition.
What did the chancellor say? Visiting a factory in western Germany, where a vital gas turbine is being stored, Chancellor Olaf Scholz was responding to a question about extending the lifetime of the power stations.
He said the nuclear power plants in question were only relevant for a small proportion of electricity production. "Nevertheless, that can make sense," he said.
The German government has previously said that renewable energy alternatives are the key to solving the country's energy problems.
However, Scholz said this was not happening quickly enough in some parts of Germany, such as Bavaria.
"The expansion of power line capacities, of the transmission grid in the south, has not progressed as quickly as was planned," the chancellor said.
"We will act for the whole of Germany, we will support all regions of Germany in the best possible way so that the energy supply for all citizens and all companies can be guaranteed as best as possible."
The phaseout has been planned for a long time. Germany's Social Democrat government, under Merkel's predecessor Gerhard Schröder, had announced that Germany would stop using nuclear power by 2022 as planned.
Schröder's successor Angela Merkel — herself a former physicist — had initially sought to extend to life of existing nuclear plants to as late as 2037. She viewed nuclear power as a bridging technology to sustain the country until new alternatives could be found.
However, Merkel decided to ditch atomic energy in 2011, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, setting Germany on a path to become the first major economy to phase out coal and nuclear in tandem.
Nuclear power accounted for 13.3% of German electricity supply in 2021. This was generated by six power plants, of which three were switched off at the end of 2021. The remaining three — Emsland, Isar and Neckarwestheim — were due to shut down at the end of 2022.
Germany's energy mix 1st half of 2022 The need to fill an energy gap has emerged after Russia dramatically reduced gas deliveries to Germany through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, though nuclear power would do little to solve the gas issue according to some officials. Officials in Berlin say the Kremlin is seeking to punish the country — which is heavily reliant on Moscow's gas — for its support of Ukraine and sanctions on Russia.
Germany has already said it will temporarily fire up mothballed coal and oil power plants in a bid to solve the looming power crisis.
Social Democrat Scholz and Germany's energy minister, Robert Habeck, from the Green Party, a junior partner in the three-way coalition government, had previously ruled out any postponement of the nuclear phasout, despite debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy among some lawmakers. The third member of Scholz's coalition, the neoliberal Free Democrats, has voiced support for the extension, as has the opposition conservative CDU-CSU bloc.
Berlin has said it will await the outcome of a new "stress test" of Germany's electric grid before deciding on the phaseout.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.
Key Points
An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.
✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation
✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment
✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more
For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.
The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.
It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.
The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.
The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.
“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.
The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.
A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.
Peak time spikes The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.
For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.
It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.
“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.
That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.
“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.
The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.
“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.
“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”
In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.
In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.
That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.
The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.
While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.
It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
