Thank Gaia for Steve Milloy, who has for more than a decade fought to stem the ever-rising waters of environmental hysteria via his Web site, junkscience.com, and his personal activism. He has now written a book, Green Hell, that provides a jaw-dropping account of a society gone eco-mad.
How could you not love a man who, in 2007, rented an airplane to pull a banner over a Live Earth concert declaring “DON’T BELIEVE AL GORE.” Or who recruited students to hand out Earth-themed beach balls at the same event bearing the words “I’m more worried about the intellectual climate”?
How could you not admire someone who staged a virtual version of the debate that Al Gore refuses to have by interposing clips of An Inconvenient Truth with segments from The Great Global Warming Swindle and posting it all on YouTube?
How could you not laud an individual who exposed Ben & Jerry’s corporate humbug? In the summer of 2000, Mr. Milloy noticed a brochure in one of their stores titled “Our Thoughts on Dioxin.” He read that “dioxin is known to cause cancer, genetic and reproductive defects and learning disabilities…. The only safe level of dioxin exposure is no exposure at all.” So he had the company’s “World’s Best Vanilla” tested and found that a single serving contained about 740 times the level of dioxin considered “safe” for children!
Mr. Milloy also co-founded the Free Enterprise Action Fund, which peppers corporate executives not with questions on what they are doing about climate change (theyÂ’re used to that), but why they are pointlessly pretending to do anything!
Green Hell shines the harsh light of objectivity on the usual NGO suspects, who are all here with their tame media megaphones, their corporate shakedowns and their cozy backroom deals: the Environmental Defense Fund, The Natural Resource Defense Council, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the Rainforest Action Network, the World Wildlife Fund — the laundry machines of greenwashing.
Mr. Milloy notes that these organizations seek to validate themselves with the trappings of the science that they fundamentally reject. The “precautionary principle,” for example, is the very opposite of objective science, since it seeks to make policy not on the basis of objective facts but manufactured fears. Real science thrives on the challenges of skeptics, but Green science ignores or demonizes those who question its shibboleths.
He outlines how Big Business has largely bowed before the NGOs’ “Luddite morality” and bully tactics, which include shamelessly exploiting children. NGOs stress “corporate social responsibility,” which Mr. Milloy defines as “intimidating companies into capitulating to Green demands.” They apply pressure via public pension funds, and by strong-arming companies into signing busybody sets of “principles.”
But Mr. Milloy also notes that some major corporations will make out like bandits from restrictive legislation, which they thus actively promote. GE is keen to flog its wind turbines. Goldman Sachs will take a rake-off from carbon trading. Other companies, such as Caterpillar, join the parade in the hope of being “at the table rather than on the menu.” But they’re just serving themselves up anyway.
This is not harmless appeasement. NGO junk science kills. The movement has caused millions of deaths with its demonization of pesticides, and opposes the biotechnology that has delivered — and promises further — cheap food for the poor. Mr. Milloy also takes us through the symphony of unintended results attached to issues such as ethanol and compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Some of Mr. Milloy’s stories are almost beyond satire. These include the U.S. armed forces having their arm twisted to use biofuels (CAFE standards for tanks?) and the Natural Resources Defense Council’s narrow loss at the Supreme Court in its suit to prevent the U.S. Navy using sonar, lest it harm sea life. Switzerland meanwhile has legislated to preserve “plant dignity.”
He catalogues the hypocrisy of the movement’s leaders and “useful idiots,” starting with the well-publicized personal energy use of Al Gore (although of course he buys carbon offsets for his eco-sins). Then comes President Obama, who “has drunk and completely metabolized the Green Kool-Aid.”
As a Senator, Mr. Obama chastised those who wanted to keep their homes at 72F, but then proceeded to crank up the White House thermostat to orchid-growing level.
Airline owner Richard Branson spouts climate alarmism even as he promotes “luxury eco-tourism” and plans to blast the super-rich into space.
Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who have been praised for their “eco-sensitivity,” fly a wide-bodied “party” Boeing 767.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has claimed that the climate debate is “over,” but that doesn’t sop him commuting to work by Gulfstream jet.
Although it deals overwhelmingly with the United States, this book should be required reading for all Canadians, who will be unavoidably dragged into the insanity being considered by the Obama administration. That includes “carbon tariffs” and banning the oil sands.
Green Hell is far more than a catalogue of political and business idiocy and cowardice. It represents a wake-up call against a relatively small group of enormously powerful activists whose motivation appears to be much more the control of our lives than the achievement of a better world. But not if Steve Milloy can help it.
UK Nuclear Power Expansion is vital for low-carbon baseload, energy security, and Net Zero, complementing renewables like wind and solar, reducing gas reliance, and unlocking investment through clear financing rules and proven, dependable reactor technology.
Key Points
Accelerating reactor build-out for low-carbon baseload to boost energy security and help deliver the UK Net Zero target.
✅ Cuts gas dependence and stabilizes grids with firm capacity.
✅ Complements wind and solar for reliable, low-carbon supply.
✅ Needs clear financing to unlock investment and lower costs.
Leading nuclear industry figures will today call for a major programme of new power stations to hit ambitious emissions reduction targets.
The 19th Nuclear Industry Association annual conference in London will highlight the need for a proven, dependable source of low carbon electricity generation alongside growth in weather-dependent solar and wind power, and particularly the rapid expansion of wind and solar generation across the UK.
Without this, they argue, the country risks embedding a major reliance on carbon-emitting gas fired power stations as Europe loses nuclear capacity at a critical time for energy security for generations to come.
Annual public opinion polling released today to coincide with the conference revealed 75% of the population want the UK Government to take more action to reduce CO2 emissions.
The survey, conducted by YouGov in October 2019, has tracked opinion trends on nuclear for more than a decade. It shows continued and consistent public support for an energy mix including nuclear and renewables, with 72% of respondents agreeing this was needed to ensure a reliable supply of electricity.
Nuclear power was also perceived as the most secure energy source for keeping the lights on, compared to other sources such as oil, gas, coal, wind power, fracking and solar power.
Last month both the Labour and Conservative Parties committed to new nuclear power as part of their election Manifestos and the government's wider green industrial revolution plans for clean growth. At the same time, 27 leading figures in the fields of environment, energy, and industry signed an open letter addressed to parliamentary candidates, which set out the benefits of nuclear and underscored the consequences of not, at least, replacing the UK's current fleet of power stations.
The Nuclear Industry Association said there is no time to be lost in clarifying the ambition and the financing rules for new nuclear power which would bring down costs and unlock a major programme of investment.
Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the NIA, said "We have to grow the industry's contribution to a low carbon economy. The independent Committee on Climate Change said earlier this year that we need a variety of technologies including nuclear power/1 for net zero to reach the UK's Net Zero emissions target by 2050".
"This is a proven, dependable, technology with lower lifecycle CO2 emissions than solar power and the same as offshore wind/2. It is also an important economic engine for the UK, supporting uses beyond electricity and creating high quality direct and indirect employment for around 155,000 people."
"Right now nuclear provides 20%/3 of all the UK's electricity but all but one of our existing fleet will close over the next decade, amid the debate over nuclear's decline as power demand will only increase with a shift to electric heating and vehicles."
"The countries and regions which have most successfully decarbonised, like Sweden, France and Ontario in Canada, have done so by relying on nuclear, aligning with Canada's climate goals for affordable, safe power today. You are not serious about tackling climate change if you are not serious about nuclear".
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
BC Hydro Air Conditioning Efficiency Tips help cut energy bills as HVAC use rises. Avoid inefficient portable AC units, set thermostats near 25 C, use fans and window shading, and turn systems off when unoccupied.
Key Points
BC Hydro's guidelines to lower summer power bills by optimizing A/C settings, fans, shading, and usage habits at home.
✅ Set thermostats to 25 C; switch off A/C when away
✅ Prefer fans and window shading; close doors/windows in heat
BC Hydro is scolding British Columbians for their ineffective, wasteful and costly use of home air conditioners.
In what the electric utility calls “not-so-savvy” behaviour, it says many people are over-spending on air conditioning units that are poorly installed or used incorrectly.
"The majority of British Columbians will spend more time at home this summer because of the COVID-19 pandemic," BC Hydro says in a news release about an August survey of customers.
"With A/C use on the rise, there is evidence British Columbians are not cooling down efficiently, leading to higher summer electricity bills, as extreme heat boosts U.S. bills too this summer."
BC Hydro estimates some customers are shelling out $200 more on their summer energy bills than they need to during a record-breaking 2021 demand year for electricity.
The pandemic is compounding the demand for cool, comfortable air at home. Roughly two in five British Columbians between the ages of 25 and 50 are working from home five days a week.
However, it’s not just COVID-19 that is putting a strain on energy consumption and monthly bills, with drought affecting generation as well today.
About 90 per cent of people who use an air conditioner set it to a temperature below the recommended 25 Celsius, according to BC Hydro.
In fact, one in three people have set their A/C to the determinedly unseasonable temperature of 19 C.
Another 30 per cent are using more than one portable air conditioning unit, which the utility says is considered the most inefficient model on the market, and questions remain about crypto mining electricity use in B.C. today.
The use of air conditioners is steadily increasing in B.C. and has more than tripled since 2001, according to BC Hydro, with all-time high demand also reported in B.C. during recent heat waves. The demand for climate control is particularly high among condo-dwellers since apartments tend to trap heat and stay warmer.
This may explain why one in 10 residents of the Lower Mainland has three portable air conditioning units, and elsewhere Calgary's frigid February surge according to Enmax.
In addition, 30 per cent of people keep the air conditioning on for the sake of their pets while no one is home.
BC Hydro makes these recommendations to save energy and money on monthly bills while still keeping homes cooled during summer’s hottest days, and it also offers a winter payment plan to help manage costs:
Cool homes to 25 C in summer months when home; air conditioning should be turned off when homes are unoccupied.
In place of air conditioning, running a fan for nine hours a day over the summer costs $7.
Shading windows with drapes and blinds can help insulate a home by keeping out 65 per cent of the heat.
If the temperature outside a home is warmer than inside, keep doors and windows closed to keep cooler air inside.
Use a microwave, crockpot or toaster oven to avoid the extra heat produced by larger appliances, such as an oven, when cooking. Hang clothes to dry instead of using a dryer on hot days.
US utilities COVID-19 resilience shows electric utilities maintaining demand stability, reaffirming earnings guidance, and accessing the bond market for low-cost financing, as Dominion, NextEra, and Con Edison manage recession risks.
Key Points
It is the sector's capacity to sustain demand, financing access, and guidance despite pandemic recession pressures.
✅ Bond market access locks in low-cost, long-term debt
Dominion Energy (D) expects "incremental residential load" gains, consistent with COVID-19 electricity demand patterns, as a result of COVID-19 fallout. Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning says his company is "nowhere near" a need to review earnings guidance because of a potential recession, in a region where efficiency and demand response can help level electricity demand for years.
Sempra Energy (SRE) has reaffirmed earnings per share guidance for 2020 and 2021, as well timing for the sale of assets in Chile and Peru, and peers such as Duke Energy's renewables plan have reaffirmed capital investments to deliver cleaner energy and economic growth. And Xcel Energy (XEL) says it still "hasn’t seen material impact on its business."
Several electric utilities have demonstrated ability to tap the bond market, in line with utility sector trends in recent years, to lock in low-cost financing, as America moves toward broader electrification, despite ongoing turmoil. Their ranks include Dominion Energy, renewable energy leader NextEra Energy (NEE) and Consolidated Edison (ED), which last week sold $1 billion of 30-year bonds at a coupon rate of just 3.95 percent.
It’s still early days for US COVID-19 fallout. And most electric companies have yet to issue guidance. That’s understandable, since so much is still unknown about the virus and the damage it will ultimately do to human health and the global economy. But so far, the US power industry is showing typical resilience in tough times, as it coordinates closely with federal partners to maintain reliability.
Will it last? We won’t know for certain until there’s a lot more data. NextEra is usually first to report its Q1 earnings reports and detailed guidance. But that’s not expected until April 23. And companies may delay financials further, should the virus and efforts to control it impede collection and analysis of data, and as they address electricity shut-off risks affecting customers.
BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief Fund enables small businesses to waive electricity bills for commercial properties during the pandemic, offering credits, rate support, and applications for eligible customers forced to temporarily close.
Key Points
A program that lets eligible small businesses waive up to three months of BC Hydro bills during COVID-19 closures.
✅ Eligible small general service BC Hydro accounts
✅ Up to 3 months of waived electricity charges
✅ Must be temporarily closed due to the pandemic
Businesses are taking advantage of a BC Hydro relief fund that allows electricity bills for commercial properties to be waived during the COVID-19 pandemic.
More than 3,000 applications have already been filed since the program launched on Wednesday, allowing commercial properties forced to shutter during the crisis to waive the expense for up to three months, while Ontario rate reductions are taking effect for businesses under separate measures.
“To be eligible for the COVID-19 Relief Fund, business customers must be on BC Hydro’s small general service rate and have temporarily closed or ceased operation due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” BC Hydro said in a statement. “BC Hydro estimates that around 40,000 small businesses in the province will be eligible for the program.”
The program builds off a similar initiative BC Hydro launched last week for residential customers who have lost employment or income because of COVID-19, and parallels Ontario's subsidized hydro plan introduced to support ratepayers. So far, 57,000 B.C. residents have applied for the relief fund, which amounts to an estimated $16 million in credits, amid scrutiny over deferred BC Hydro operating costs reported by the auditor general.
Electricity use across B.C. has plummeted since the outbreak began.
According to BC Hydro, daily consumption has fallen 13% in the first two weeks of April, aligning with electricity demand down 10% reports, compared to the three-year average for the same time period.
Electricity use has fallen 30% for recreation facilities, 29% in the restaurant sector and 27% in hotels, while industry groups such as Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters have supported steps to reduce prices.
For more information about the COVID-19 Relief Fund and advice on avoiding BC Hydro scam attempts, go to bchydro.com/covid19relief.
Canada Clean Electricity Regulations outline a 2035 net-zero grid target, driving decarbonization via wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, carbon capture, and efficiency, balancing reliability, affordability, and federal-provincial collaboration while phasing out coal and limiting fossil-fuel generation.
Key Points
Federal rules to cap CO2 from power plants and deliver a reliable, affordable net-zero grid by 2035.
✅ Applies to fossil-fired units; standards effective by Jan 1, 2035.
✅ Promotes wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, carbon capture, and efficiency.
✅ Balances reliability, affordability, and emissions cuts; ongoing consultation.
Saskatchewan’s premier said the federal government is “changing goalposts” with its proposed target for a net-zero electricity grid.
“We were looking at a net-zero plan in Saskatchewan and across Canada by the year 2050. That’s now been bumped to 2035. Well there are provinces that quite frankly aren’t going to achieve those types of targets by 2035,” Premier Scott Moe said Wednesday.
Ottawa proposed the Clean Electricity Regulations – formerly the Clean Electricity Standard – as part of its target for Canada to transition to net-zero emissions by 2050.
The regulations would help the country progress towards an updated proposed goal of a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.
“They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity,” Moe said.
The Government of Canada was seeking feedback from stakeholders on the plan’s regulatory framework document earlier this year, up until August 2022.
“The clean electricity standard is something that’s still being consulted on and we certainly heard the views of Saskatchewan – not just Saskatchewan, many other provinces – and I think that’s something that’s being reflected on,” Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s minister of natural resources, said during an event near Regina Wednesday.
“We also recognize that the federal government has a role to play in helping provinces to make the kinds of changes that would need to be made in order to actually achieve a clean grid,” Wilkinson added.
The information received during the consultation will help inform the development of the proposed regulations, which are expected to be released before the end of the year, according to the federal government.
NET-ZERO ELECTRICITY GRID The federal government said its Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) is part of a suite of measures, as the country moves towards a broad “decarbonization” of the economy, with Alberta's clean electricity path illustrating provincial approaches as well.
Net-zero emissions would mean Canada’s economy would either emit no greenhouse gas emissions or offset its emissions.
The plan encourages energy efficiency, abatement and non-emitting generation technologies such as carbon capture and storage and electricity generation options such as solar, wind, geothermal, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and hydro, among others.
The government suggests consumer costs could be lowered by using some of these energy efficiency techniques, alongside demand management and a shift to lower-cost wind and solar power, echoing initiatives like the SaskPower 10% rebate aimed at affordability.
The CER focuses on three principles, each tied to affordability debates like the SaskPower rate hike in Saskatchewan:
Maximize greenhouse gas reductions to achieve the 2035 target Ensure a reliable electrical grid to support Canadians and the economy Maintain electrical affordability
“Achieving a net-zero electricity supply is key to reaching Canada’s climate targets in two ways,” the government said in its proposed regulations.
“First, it will reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions from the production of electricity. Second, using clean electricity instead of fossil fuels in vehicles, heating and industry will reduce emissions from those sectors too.
The regulations would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generating units that combust any amount of fossil fuel, have a capacity above a small megawatt threshold and sell electricity onto a regulated electricity system.
New rules would also be implemented for the development of new electricity generation units firing fossil fuels in or after 2025 and existing units. All units would be subject to emission standards by Jan. 1, 2035, at the latest.
The federal government launched consultations on the proposed regulations in March 2022.
Canada also has a 2030 emissions reduction plan that works towards meeting its Paris Agreement target to reduce emissions by 40-45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. This plan includes regulations to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030.
COLLABORATION The province recently introduced the Saskatchewan First Act, in an attempt to confirm its own jurisdiction and sovereignty when it comes to natural resources.
The act would amend Saskatchewan’s constitution to exert exclusive legislative jurisdiction under the Constitution of Canada.
The province is seeking jurisdiction over the exploration of non-renewable resources, the development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural and forestry resources, and the operation of sites and facilities for the generation and production of electrical energy.
While the federal government and Saskatchewan have come head-to-head publicly over several policy concerns in the past year, both sides remain open to collaborating on issues surrounding natural resources.
“We do have provincial jurisdiction in the development of these natural resources. We’d like to work collaboratively with the federal government on developing some of the most sustainable potash, uranium, agri-food products in the world,” Moe said.
Minister Wilkinson noted that while both the federal and provincial governments aim to respect each other’s jurisdiction, there is often some overlap, particularly in the case of environmental and economic policies, with Alberta's electricity sector changes underscoring those tensions as well.
“My view is we should endeavour to try to figure out ways that we can work together, and to ensure that we’re actually making progress for Saskatchewanians and for Canadians,” Wilkinson said.
“I think that Canadians expect us to try to figure out ways to work together, and where there are some disputes that can’t get resolved, ultimately the Supreme Court will decide on the issue of jurisdiction as they did in the case on the price on pollution.”
Moe said Saskatchewan is always open to working with the federal government, but not at the expense of its “provincial, constitutional autonomy.”
