More hydropower plants sought

DOE Environmental Management Funding Boost seeks $7.25B to accelerate nuclear cleanup, upgrade Savannah River Site infrastructure, create jobs, and support small businesses, echoing ARRA 2009 results and expediting DOE EM waste remediation nationwide.

Key Points

A proposed $7.25B stimulus for DOE's EM to accelerate nuclear cleanup, modernize infrastructure, and create jobs.

✅ $7.25B one-time stimulus for DOE EM cleanup and infrastructure.

✅ Targets Savannah River Site; supports jobs and small businesses.

✅ Builds on ARRA 2009; accelerates nuclear waste remediation.

A bloc of local governments and nuclear industry, nuclear innovation efforts, labor and community groups are pressing Congress to provide a one-time multibillion-dollar boost to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management, the remediation-focused Savannah River Site landlord.

The organizations and officials -- including Citizens For Nuclear Technology Awareness Executive Director Jim Marra and Savannah River Site Community Reuse Organization President and CEO Rick McLeod -- sent a letter Friday to U.S. House and Senate leadership "strongly" supporting a $7.25 billion funding injection, even as ACORE challenges coal and nuclear subsidies in separate regulatory proceedings, arguing it "will help reignite the national economy," help revive small businesses and create thousands of new jobs despite the novel coronavirus crisis.

More than 30 million Americans have filed unemployment claims in the past two months, with additional clean energy job losses reported, too. Hundreds of thousands of claims have been filed in South Carolina since mid-March, compounding issues like unpaid utility bills in neighboring states.

The requested money could, too, speed Environmental Management's nuclear waste cleanup missions and be used to fix ailing infrastructure and strengthen energy security for rural communities nationwide -- some of which dates back to the Cold War -- at sites across the country. That's a "rare" opportunity, reads the letter, which prominently features the Energy Communities Alliance logo and its chairman's signature.

Similar funding programs, like what was done with the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and recent clean energy funding initiatives, have been successful.

At the time, amid a staggering economic downturn nationwide, Environmental Management contractors "hired over 20,000 new workers," putting them "to work to reduce the overall cleanup complex footprint by 688 square miles while strengthening local economies," the Friday letter reads.

The Energy Department's cleanup office estimates the $6 billion investment years ago reduced its environmental liability by $13 billion, according to a 2012 report.

Such a leap forward, the coalition believes, is repeatable, a view reflected in current plans to revitalize coal communities with clean energy projects across the country.

"We are confident that DOE can successfully manage increased funding and leverage it for future economic development as it has in the past," the letter states. It continues: "We take pride in working together to support jobs and development of infrastructure and work that make our country stronger and assists us to recover from the impacts of COVID-19."

As of Monday afternoon, 8,942 cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, have been logged in South Carolina. Aiken County is home to 155 of those cases.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Energy equity in utility regulation prioritizes fair rates, clean energy access, and DERs, addressing fixed charges and energy burdens on low-income households through stakeholder engagement and public utility commission reforms.

Key Points

Fairly allocates clean energy benefits and rate burdens, ensuring access and protections for low-income households.

✅ Reduces fixed charges that burden low-income households

✅ Funds community participation in utility proceedings

✅ Prioritizes DERs, energy efficiency, and solar in impacted areas

By Kiran Julin

Pouring over the line items on your monthly electricity bill may not sound like an enticing way to spend an afternoon, but the way electricity bills are structured has a significant impact on equitable energy access and distribution. For example, fixed fees can have a disproportionate impact on low-income households. And combined with other factors, low-income households and households of color are far more likely to report losing home heating service, with evidence from pandemic power shut-offs highlighting these disparities, according to recent federal data.

Advancing Equity in Utility Regulation, a new report published by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), makes a unifying case that utilities, regulators, and stakeholders need to prioritize energy equity in the deployment of clean energy technologies and resources, aligning with a people-and-planet electricity future envisioned by advocacy groups. Equity in this context is the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of energy production and consumption. The report outlines systemic changes needed to advance equity in electric utility regulation by providing perspectives from four organizations — Portland General Electric, a utility company; the National Consumer Law Center, a consumer advocacy organization; and the Partnership for Southern Equity and the Center for Biological Diversity, social justice and environmental organizations.
 
“While government and ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs have made strides towards equity by enabling low-income households to access energy-efficiency measures, that has not yet extended in a major way to other clean-energy technologies,” said Lisa Schwartz, a manager and strategic advisor at Berkeley Lab and technical editor of the report. “States and utilities can take the lead to make sure the clean-energy transition does not leave behind low-income households and communities of color. Decarbonization and energy equity goals are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, they need to go hand-in-hand.”

Energy bills and electricity rates are governed by state laws and utility regulators, whose mission is to ensure that utility services are reliable, safe, and fairly priced. Public utility commissions also are increasingly recognizing equity as an important goal, tool, and metric, and some customers face major changes to electric bills as reforms advance. While states can use existing authorities to advance equity in their decision-making, several, including Illinois, Maine, Oregon, and Washington, have enacted legislation over the last couple of years to more explicitly require utility regulators to consider equity.

“The infrastructure investments that utility companies make today, and regulator decisions about what goes into electricity bills, including new rate design steps that shape customer costs, will have significant impacts for decades to come,” Schwartz said.

Solutions recommended in the report include considering energy justice goals when determining the “public interest” in regulatory decisions, allocating funding for energy justice organizations to participate in utility proceedings, supporting utility programs that increase deployment of energy efficiency and solar for low-income households, and accounting for energy inequities and access in designing electricity rates, while examining future utility revenue models as technologies evolve.

The report is part of the Future of Electric Utility Regulation series that started in 2015, led by Berkeley Lab and funded by DOE, to encourage informed discussion and debate on utility trends and tackling the toughest issues related to state electric utility regulation. An advisory group of utilities, public utility commissioners, consumer advocates, environmental and social justice organizations, and other experts provides guidance.

Taking stock of past and current energy inequities

One focus of the report is electricity bills. In addition to charges based on usage, electricity bills usually also have a fixed basic customer charge, which is the minimum amount a household has to pay every month to access electricity. The fixed charge varies widely, from $5 to more than $20. In recent years, utility companies have sought sizable increases in this charge to cover more costs, amid rising electricity prices in some markets.

This fixed charge means that no matter what a household does to use energy more efficiently or to conserve energy, there is always a minimum cost. Moreover, low-income households often live in older, poorly insulated housing. Current levels of public and utility funding for energy-efficiency programs fall far short of the need. The combined result is that the energy burden – or percent of income needed to keep the lights on and their homes at a healthy temperature – is far greater for lower-income households.

“While all households require basic lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration, low-income households must devote a greater proportion of income to maintain basic service,” explained John Howat and Jenifer Bosco from the National Consumer Law Center and co-authors of Berkeley Lab’s report. Their analysis of data from the most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey shows households with income less than $20,000 reported losing home heating service at a pace more than five times higher than households with income over $80,000. Households of color were far more likely than those with a white householder to report loss of heating service. In addition, low-income households and households of color are more likely to have to choose between paying their energy bill or paying for other necessities, such as healthcare or food.

Based on the most recent data (2015) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), households with income less than $20,000 reported losing home heating service at a rate more than five times higher than households with income over $80,000. Households of color were far more likely than those with a white householder to report loss of heating service. Click on chart for larger view. (Credit: John Howat/National Consumer Law Center, using EIA data)

Moreover, while many of the infrastructure investment decisions that utilities make, such as whether and where to build a new power plant, often have long-term environmental and health consequences, impacted communities often are not at the table. “Despite bearing an inequitable proportion of the negative impacts of environmental injustices related to fossil fuel-based energy production and climate change, marginalized communities remain virtually unrepresented in the energy planning and decision-making processes that drive energy production, distribution, and regulation,” wrote Chandra Farley, CEO of ReSolve and a co-author of the report.

Engaging impacted communities
Each of the perspectives in the report identify a need for meaningful engagement of underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in energy planning and utility decision-making. “Connecting the dots between energy, racial injustice, economic disinvestment, health disparities, and other associated equity challenges becomes a clarion call for communities that are being completely left out of the clean energy economy,” wrote Farley, who previously served as the Just Energy Director at Partnership for Southern Equity. “We must prioritize the voices and lived experiences of residents if we are to have more equity in utility regulation and equitably transform the energy sector.”

In another essay in the report, Nidhi Thaker and Jake Wise from Portland General Electric identify the importance of collaborating directly with the communities they serve. In 2021, the Oregon Legislature passed Oregon HB 2475, which allows the Oregon Public Utility Commission to allocate ratepayer funding for organizations representing people most affected by a high energy burden, enabling them to participate in utility regulatory processes.

The report explains why energy equity requires correcting inequities resulting from past and present failures as well as rethinking how we achieve future energy and decarbonization goals. “Equity in energy requires adopting an expansive definition of the ‘public interest’ that encompasses energy, climate, and environmental justice. Energy equity also means prioritizing the deployment of distributed energy resources and clean energy technologies in areas that have been hit first and worst by the existing fossil fuel economy,” wrote Jean Su, energy justice director and senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.

This report was supported by DOE’s Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, with funding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Rate Increase proposes a 2.3% hike from April, with BCUC review, aligning below inflation and funding clean energy, electrification, and grid upgrades across British Columbia while keeping electricity prices among North America's lowest.

Key Points

A proposed 2.3% BC Hydro hike from April, under BCUC review, funds clean energy and keeps average bills below inflation.

✅ Adds about $2 per month to average residential bill

✅ Sixth straight increase below inflation since 2018

✅ Supports renewable projects and grid modernization

The British Columbia government says the province’s Crown power utility is applying for a 2.3-per-cent rate increase starting in April, with higher BC Hydro rates previously outlined, adding about $2 a month to the average residential bill.

A statement from the Energy Ministry says it’s the sixth year in a row that BC Hydro has applied for an increase below the rate of inflation, similar to a 3 per cent rise noted in a separate approval, which still trailed inflation.

It says rates are currently 15.6 per cent lower than the cumulative rate of inflation over the last seven years, starting in 2017-2018, with a provincial rate freeze among past measures, and 12.4 per cent lower than the 10-year rates plan established by the previous government in 2013.

The ministry says the “modest” rate increase application comes after consideration of a variety of options and their long-term impacts, including scenarios like a 3.75% two-year path evaluated alongside others, and the B.C. Utilities Commission is expected to decide on the plan by the end of February.

Chris O’Riley, president of BC Hydro, says the rates application would keep electricity costs in the province among the lowest in North America, even as a BC Hydro fund surplus prompted calls for changes, while supporting investments in clean energy to power vehicles, homes and businesses.

Energy Minister Josie Osborne says it’s more important than ever to keep electricity bills down, especially as Ontario hydro rates increase in a separate jurisdiction, as the cost of living rises at rates that are unsustainable for many.

“Affordable, stable BC Hydro rates are good for people, businesses and climate as we work together to power our growing economy with renewable energy instead of fossil fuels,” Osborne says in a statement issued Monday.

Earlier this year, the ministry said BC Hydro provided $315 million in cost-of-living bill credits, while in another province Manitoba Hydro scaled back an increase to ease pressure, to families and small businesses in the province, including those who receive their electricity service from FortisBC or a municipal utility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Spain Electricity Demand April 2020 saw a 17.3% year-on-year drop as COVID-19 lockdown curbed activity; renewables and wind power lifted the emission-free share, while combined cycle plants dominated islands, per REE data.

Key Points

A 17.3% y/y decline amid COVID-19 lockdown, with 47.9% renewables and wind at 21.3% of the national power mix.

✅ Mainland demand -17%; Balearic -27.6%; Canary -20.3%.

✅ Emission-free share: 49.7% on the peninsula in April.

✅ Combined cycle led islands; coal absent in Balearics.

Demand for electricity in Spain dropped by 17.3% year-on-year to an estimated 17,104 GWh in April, aligning with a 15% global daily demand dip during the pandemic, while the country’s economy slowed down under the national state of emergency and lockdown measures imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19.

According to the latest estimates by Spanish grid operator Red Electrica de Espana (REE), the decline in demand was registered across Spain’s entire national territory, similar to a 10% UK drop during lockdown. On the mainland, it decreased by 17% to 16,191 GWh, while on the Balearic and the Canary Islands it plunged by 27.6% and 20.3%, respectively.

Renewables accounted for 47.9% of the total national electricity production in April, echoing Britain’s cleanest electricity trends during lockdown. Wind power production went down 20% year-on-year to 3,730 GWh, representing a 21.3% share in the total power mix.

During April, electricity generation in the peninsula was mostly based on emission-free technologies, reflecting an accelerated power-system transition across Europe, with renewables accounting for 49.7%. Wind farms produced 3,672 GWh, 20.1% less compared to April 2019, while contributing 22% to the power mix, even as global demand later surpassed pre-pandemic levels in subsequent periods.

In the Balearic Islands, electricity demand of 323,296 MWh was for the most part met by combined cycle power plants, even as some European demand held firm in later lockdowns, which accounted for 78.3% of the generation. Renewables and emission-free technologies had a combined share of 6.4%, while coal was again absent from the local power mix, completing now four consecutive months without contributing a single MWh.

In the Canary Islands system, demand for power decreased to 558,619 MWh, even as surging demand elsewhere strained power systems across the world. Renewables and emission-free technologies made up 14.3% of the mix, while combined cycle power plants led with a 45.3% share.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Clean Energy Expansion signals IESO-backed renewables, energy storage, and low-CO2 power to meet EV-driven demand, offset Pickering nuclear retirement, and balance interim gas-fired generation while advancing grid reliability, decarbonization, and net-zero targets.

Key Points

Ontario Clean Energy Expansion plans to grow renewables and storage, manage short-term gas, and meet rising demand.

✅ IESO long-term procurements for renewables and storage

✅ Interim reliance on gas to replace Pickering capacity

✅ Targets align with net-zero grid reliability goals

After cancelling hundreds of renewable power projects four years ago, the Doug Ford government appears set to expand clean energy to meet a looming electricity shortfall across the province.

Recent announcements from Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith and the province’s electric grid management agency suggest the province plans to expand low-CO2 electricity with new wind and solar plans in the long-term, even as it ramps up gas-fired power over the next five years.

The moves are in response to an impending electricity shortfall as climate-conscious drivers switch to electric vehicles, farmers replace field crops with greenhouses and companies like ArcelorMittal Dofasco in Hamilton switch from CO2-heavy manufacturing to electricity-based production. Forecasters predict Canada will need to double its power supply by 2050.

While Ontario has a relatively low-CO2 power system, the province’s electricity supply will be reduced in 2025 when Ontario Power Generation closes the 50-year-old Pickering nuclear station, now near the end of its operating life. This will remove 3,100 megawatts of low-CO2 generation, about eight per cent of the province’s 40,000-megawatt total.

The impending closure has created a difficult situation for the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the provincial agency managing Ontario’s grid. Last year, it forecasted it would need to sharply increase CO2-polluting natural gas-fired power to avoid widespread blackouts.

This would mean drivers switching to electric vehicles or companies like Dofasco cutting CO2 through electrification would end up causing higher power system emissions.

It would also fly in the face of the federal government’s ambition to create a net-zero national electricity system by 2035, a critical part of Canada’s pledge to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2050.

Yet the Ford government has appeared reluctant to expand clean energy. In the 2018 election, clean electricity was a key issue as it appealed to anti-turbine voters in rural Ontario and cancelled more than 700 renewable energy contracts shortly after taking office, taking 400 megawatts out of the system.

But there are signs the government is having a change of heart. IESO recently released a list of 55 companies approved to submit bids for 3,500 megawatts of long-term electricity contracts starting between 2025 and 2027, and the energy minister has outlined a plan to address growing energy needs as well.

The companies include a variety of potential producers, ranging from Canadian and global renewable companies to local utilities and small startups. Most are renewable power or energy storage companies specializing in low- or zero-emission power. IESO plans additional long-term bid offerings in the future.

This doesn’t mean gas generation will be turned off. IESO will contract yearly production from existing gas plants until 2028 (the annual contract in 2023 will be for about 2,000 megawatts). As well, IESO has issued contracts to four gas-fired producers, a small wind company and a storage company to begin production of about 700 megawatts to boost gas plant output starting between 2024 and 2026.

While this represents an expansion of existing gas-fired generation, Smith has asked IESO to report on a gas moratorium, saying he doesn’t believe new gas plants will be needed over the long term.

The NDP and Greens criticized the government for relying on gas in the near term. But clean energy advocates greeted the long-term plans positively.

The IESO process “will contribute to a clean, reliable and affordable grid,” said the Canadian Renewable Energy Association.

Rachel Doran, director of policy and strategy at Clean Energy Canada, said in an email the potential gas generation moratorium “is an encouraging step forward,” although she criticized the “unfortunate decision to replace near-term nuclear power capacity with climate-change-causing natural gas.”

There will have to be a massive clean energy expansion to green Ontario’s grid well beyond what has been announced in recent days for Ontario to meet its future energy needs (think a doubling of Ontario’s current 40,000-megawatt capacity by 2050).

But these first steps hold promise that Ontario is at least starting on the path to that goal, rather than scrambling to keep the lights on with CO2-polluting natural gas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News