Ameren to reorganize Illinois utilities

Bruce Power Capacity Uprate boosts nuclear output through generator stator upgrades, turbine and transformer enhancements, and cooling pump improvements at Bruce A and B, unlocking megawatts and efficiency gains from legacy heavy water design capacity.

Key Points

Upgrades that raise Bruce Power capacity via stator, turbine, transformer, and cooling enhancements.

✅ Generator stator replacement increases electrical conversion efficiency

✅ Turbine and transformer upgrades enable higher MW output

✅ Cooling pump enhancements optimize plant thermal performance

Bruce Power’s Unit 3 nuclear reactor will squeeze out an extra 22 megawatts of electricity, thanks to upgrades during its recent planned outage for refurbishment.

Similar gains are anticipated at its three sister reactors at Bruce A generating station, which presents the opportunity for the biggest efficiency gains and broader economic benefits for Ontario, due to a design difference over Bruce B’s four reactors, Bruce Power spokesman John Peevers said.

Bruce A reactor efficiency gains stem mainly from the fact Bruce A’s non-nuclear side, including turbines and the generator, was sized at 88 per cent of the nuclear capacity, Peevers said, while early Bruce C exploration work advances.

This allowed 12 per cent of the energy, in the form of steam, to be used for heavy water production, which was discontinued at the plant years ago. Heavy water, or deuterium, is used to moderate the reactors.

That design difference left a potential excess capacity that Bruce Power is making use of through various non-nuclear enhancements. But the nuclear operator, which also made major PPE donations during the pandemic, will be looking at enhancements at Bruce B as well, Peevers said.

Bruce Power’s efficiency gain came from “technology advancements,” including a “generator-stator improvement project that was integral to the uprate,” and contributed to an operating record at the site, a Bruce Power news release said July 11.

Peevers said the stationary coils and the associated iron cores inside the generator are referred to as the stator. The stator acts as a conductor for the main generator current, while the turbine provides the mechanical torque on the shaft of the generator.

“Some of the other things we’re working on are transformer replacement and cooling pump enhancements, backed by recent manufacturing contracts, which also help efficiency and contribute to greater megawatt output,” Peevers said.

The added efficiency improvements raised the nuclear operator’s peak generating capacity to 6,430 MW, as projects like Pickering life extensions continue across Ontario.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canadian Industrial IoT Cybersecurity Standards aim to unify device security for utilities, smart grids, SCADA, and OT systems, aligning with NERC CIP, enabling certification, trust marks, compliance testing, and safer energy sector deployments.

Key Points

National standards to secure industrial IoT for utilities and grids, enabling certification and NERC CIP alignment.

✅ Aligns with NERC CIP and NIST frameworks for energy sector security

✅ Defines certification, testing tools, and a trusted device repository

✅ Enhances OT, SCADA, and smart grid resilience against cyber threats

The Canadian energy sector has been buying Internet-connected sensors for monitoring a range of activities in generating plants, distribution networks facing harsh weather risks and home smart meters for several years. However, so far industrial IoT device makers have been creating their own security standards for devices, leaving energy producers and utilities at their mercy.

The industry hopes to change that by creating national cybersecurity standards for industrial IoT devices, with the goal of improving its ability to predict, prevent, respond to and recover from cyber threats, such as emerging ransomware attacks across the grid.

To help, the federal government today announced an $818,000 grant support a CIO Strategy Council project oversee the setting of standards.

In an interview council executive director Keith Jansa said the money will help a three-year effort that will include holding a set of cross-country meetings with industry, government, academics and interest groups to create the standards, tools to be able to test devices against the standards and the development of product repository of IoT safe devices companies can consult before making purchases.

“The challenge is there are a number of these devices that will be coming online over the next few years,” Jansa said. “IoT devices are designed for convenience and not for security, so how do you ensure that a technology an electricity utility secures is in fact safeguarded against cyber threats? Currently, there is no associated trust mark or certification that gives confidence associated with these devices.”

He also said the council will work with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which sets North American-wide utility safety procedural standards and informs efforts on protecting the power grid across jurisdictions. The industrial IoT standards will be product standards.

According to Robert Wong, vice-president and CIO of Toronto Hydro, all the big provincial utilities are subject to adhering to NERC CIP standards which have requirements for both cyber and physical security. Ontario is different from most provinces in that it has local distribution companies — like Toronto Hydro — which buy electricity in bulk and resell it to customers.  These LDCs don’t own or operate critical infrastructure and therefore don’t have to follow the NERC CIP standards.

Regional reforms, such as regulatory changes in Atlantic Canada, aim to bring greener power options to the grid.

Electricity is considered around the world as one of a country’s critical national infrastructure. Threats to the grid can be used for ransom or by a country for political pressure. Ukraine had its power network knocked offline in 2015 and 2016 by what were believed to be Russian-linked attackers operating against utilities.

All the big provincial utilities operate “critical infrastructure” and are subject to adhering to NERC CIP (critical infrastructure protection) standards, which have requirements for both cyber and physical security, as similar compromises at U.S. electric utilities have highlighted recently.  There are audited on a regular basis for compliance and can face hefty fines if they fail to meet the requirements.  The LDCs in Ontario don’t own or operate “critical infrastructure” and therefore are not required to adopt NERC CIP standards (at least for now).

The CIO Strategy Council is a forum for chief information officers that is helping set standards in a number of areas. In January it announced a partnership with the Internet Society’s Canada Chapter to create standards of practice for IoT security for consumer devices. As part of the federal government’s updated national cybersecurity strategy it is also developing a national cybersecurity standard for small and medium-sized businesses. That strategy would allow SMBs to advertise to customers that they meet minimum security requirements.

“The security of Canadians and our critical infrastructure is paramount,” federal minister of natural resources Seamus O’Regan said in a statement with today’s announcement. “Cyber attacks are becoming more common and dangerous. That’s why we are supporting this innovative project to protect the Canadian electricity sector.”

The announcement was welcomed by Robert Wong, Toronto Hydro’s vice-president and CIO. “Any additional investment towards strengthening the safeguards against cyberattacks to Canada’s critical infrastructure is definitely good news.  From the perspective of the electricity sector, the convergence of IT and OT (operational technology) has been happening for some time now as the traditional electricity grid has been transforming into a Smart Grid with the introduction of smart meters, SCADA systems, electronic sensors and monitors, smart relays, intelligent automated switching capabilities, distributed energy resources, and storage technologies (batteries, flywheels, compressed air, etc.).

“In my experience, many OT device and system manufacturers and vendors are still lagging the traditional IT vendors in incorporating Security by Design philosophies and effective security features into their products.  This, in turn, creates greater risks and challenges for utilities to protecting their critical infrastructures and ensuring a reliable supply of electricity to its customers.”

The Ontario Energy Board, which regulates the industry in the province, has led an initiative for all utilities to adopt the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework, along with the ES-C2M2 maturity and Privacy By Design models, he noted.  Toronto Hydro has been managing its cybersecurity practice in adherence to these standards, as the city addresses growing electricity needs as well, he said.

“Other jurisdictions, such as Israel, have invested heavily on a national level in developing its cybersecurity capabilities and are seen as global leaders.  I am confident that given the availability of talent, capabilities and resources in Canada (especially around the GTA) if we get strong support and leadership at a federal level we can also emerge as a leader in this area as well.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Idaho Renewable Energy 2018 saw over 80% in-state utility-scale power from hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, per EIA, with imports declining as Snake River Plain resources and Hells Canyon hydro lead.

Key Points

Idaho produced over 80% in-state power from renewables in 2018, led by hydropower, wind, solar, and biomass.

✅ Hydropower supplies about half of capacity; Hells Canyon leads.

✅ Wind provides nearly 20% of capacity along the Snake River Plain.

✅ Utility-scale solar surged since 2016; biomass and geothermal add output.

More than 80% of Idaho’s in-state utility-scale electricity generation came from renewable resources in 2018, behind only Vermont, according to recently released data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Electric Power Monthly and broader trends showing that solar and wind reached about 10% of U.S. generation in the first half of 2018.

Idaho generated 17.4 million MWh of electricity in 2018, of which 14.2 million MWh came from renewable sources, while nationally January power generation jumped 9.3% year over year according to EIA. Idaho uses a variety of renewable resources to generate electricity:

Hydroelectricity. Idaho ranked seventh in the U.S. in electricity generation from hydropower in 2018. About half of Idaho’s electricity generating capacity is at hydroelectric power plants, and utility actions such as the Idaho Power settlement could influence future resource choices, and seven of the state’s 10 largest power plants (in terms of electricity generation) are hydroelectric facilities. The largest privately owned hydroelectric generating facility in the U.S. is a three-dam complex on the Snake River in Hells Canyon, the deepest river gorge in North America.

Wind. Nearly one-fifth of Idaho’s electricity generating capacity and one-sixth of its generation comes from wind turbines. Idaho has substantial wind energy potential, and nationally the EIA expects solar and wind to be larger sources this summer, although only a small percentage of the state's land area is well-suited for wind development. All of the state’s wind farms are located in the southern half of the state along the Snake River Plain.

Solar. Almost 5% of Idaho’s electricity generating capacity and 3% of its generation come from utility-scale solar facilities, and nationally over half of new capacity in 2023 will be solar according to projections. The state had no utility-scale solar generation as recently as 2015. Between 2016 and 2017, Idaho’s utility-scale capacity doubled and generation increased from 30,000 MWh to more than 450,000 MWh. Idaho’s small-scale solar capacity also doubled since 2017, generating 33,000 MWh in 2018.

Biomass. Biomass-fueled power plants account for about 2% of the state’s utility-scale electricity generating capacity and 3% of its generation, contributing to a broader U.S. shift where 40% of electricity came from non-fossil sources in 2021. Wood waste from the state’s forests is the primary fuel for these plants.

Geothermal. Idaho is one of seven states with utility-scale geothermal electricity generation. Idaho has one 18-MW geothermal facility, located near the state’s southern border with Utah.

EIA says Idaho requires significant electricity imports, totaling about one-third of demand, to meet its electricity needs. However, Idaho’s electricity imports have decreased over time, and Georgia's recent import levels illustrate how regional dynamics can vary. Almost all of these imports are from neighboring states, as electricity imports from Canada accounted for less than 0.1% of Idaho’s total electricity supply in 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Control of Ukraine Nuclear Plants sparks debate over ZNPP, Zaporizhzhia, sovereignty, safety, ownership, and international cooperation, as Washington touts utility expertise, investment, and modernization to protect critical energy infrastructure amid conflict.

Key Points

US management proposal for Ukraine's nuclear assets, notably ZNPP, balancing sovereignty, safety, and investment.

✅ Ukraine retains ownership; any transfer requires parliament approval.

✅ ZNPP safety risks persist amid occupation near active conflict.

✅ International reactions split: sovereignty vs. cooperation and investment.

In a recent phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed that the United States take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which has been under Russian occupation since early in the war and where Russia is reportedly building power lines to reactivate the plant amid ongoing tensions. Trump suggested that American ownership of these plants could be the best protection for their infrastructure, a proposal that has sparked controversy in policy circles, and that the U.S. could assist in running them with its electricity and utility expertise.

Ukrainian Response

President Zelenskyy promptly addressed Trump's proposal, stating that while the conversation focused on the ZNPP, the issue of ownership was not discussed. He emphasized that all of Ukraine's nuclear power plants belong to the Ukrainian people and that any transfer of ownership would require parliamentary approval . Zelenskyy clarified that while the U.S. could invest in and help modernize the ZNPP, ownership would remain with Ukraine.

Security Concerns

The ZNPP, Europe's largest nuclear facility, has been non-operational since its occupation by Russian forces in 2022. The plant's location near active conflict zones raises significant safety risks that the IAEA has warned of in connection with attacks on Ukraine's power grids, and its future remains uncertain. Ukrainian officials have expressed concerns about potential Russian provocations, such as explosions, especially after UN inspectors reported mines at the Zaporizhzhia plant near key facilities, if and when Ukraine attempts to regain control of the plant.

International Reactions

The proposal has elicited mixed reactions both within Ukraine and internationally. Some Ukrainian officials view it as an opportunistic move by the U.S. to gain control over critical infrastructure, while others see it as a potential avenue for modernization and investment, alongside expanding wind power that is harder to destroy in wartime. The international community remains divided on the issue, with some supporting Ukraine's sovereignty over its nuclear assets and others advocating for a possible agreement on power plant attacks to ensure the plant's safety and future operation.

President Trump's proposal to have the U.S. take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has sparked significant controversy. While the U.S. offers expertise and investment, Ukraine maintains that ownership of its nuclear assets is a matter of national sovereignty, even as it has resumed electricity exports to bolster its economy. The situation underscores the complex interplay between security, sovereignty, and international cooperation in conflict zones.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News