Canadian power crews head to Irma-hit Florida to help restore service

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

ESCC COVID-19 Resource Guide outlines control center continuity, sequestration, social distancing, remote operations, testing priorities, mutual assistance, supply chain risk, and PPE protocols to sustain grid reliability and plant operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Points

An industry guide to COVID-19 mitigation for the power sector covering control centers, testing, PPE, and mutual aid.

✅ Control center continuity: segregation, remote ops, reserve shifts

✅ Sequestration triggers, testing priorities, and PPE protocols

✅ Mutual assistance, supply chain risk, and workforce planning

The latest version of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council’s (ESCC’s) resource guide to assess and mitigate COVID-19 suggests the U.S. power sector continues to grapple with key concerns involving control center continuity, power plant continuity, access to restricted and quarantined areas, mutual assistance, and supply chain challenges, alongside urban demand shifts seen in Ottawa’s electricity demand during closures.

In its fifth and sixth versions of the “ESCC Resource Guide—Assessing and Mitigating the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19),” released on April 16 and April 20, respectively, the ESCC expanded its guidance as it relates to social distancing and sequestration within tight power sector environments like control centers, crucial mitigation strategies that are designed to avoid attrition of essential workers.

The CEO-led power sector group that serves as a liaison with the federal government during emergencies introduced the guide on March 23, and it provides periodic updates  sourced from “tiger teams,” which are made up of representatives from investor-owned electric companies, public power utilities, electric cooperatives, independent power producers (IPPs), and other stakeholders. Collating regulatory updates and emerging resources, it serves as a general shareable blueprint for generators,  transmission and distribution (T&D) facilities, reliability coordinators, and balancing authorities across the nation on issues the sector is facing as the COVID-19 pandemic endures.

Controlling Spread at Control Centers
While control centers are typically well-isolated, physically secure, and may be conducive to on-site sequestration, the guide is emphatic that staff at these facilities are typically limited and they need long lead times to be trained to properly use the information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT) tools to keep control centers functioning and maintain grid visibility. Control room operators generally include: reliability engineers, dispatchers, area controllers, and their shift supervisors. Staff that directly support these function, also considered critical, consist of employees who maintain and secure the functionality of the IT and OT tools used by the control room operators.

In its latest update, the ESCC notes that many entities took “proactive steps to isolate their control center facilities from external visitors and non-essential employees early in the pandemic, leveraging the presence of back-up control centers, self-quarantining of employees, and multiple shifts to maximize social distancing.” To ensure all levels of logistical and operational challenges posed by the pandemic are addressed, it envisions several scenarios ranging from mild contagion—where a single operator is affected at one of two control center sites to the compromise of both sites.

Previous versions of the guide have set out universal mitigation strategies—such as clear symptom reporting, cleaning, and travel guidance. To ensure continuity even in the most dire of circumstances, for example, it recommends segregating shifts, and even sequestering a “complete healthy shift” as a “reserve” for times when minimum staffing levels cannot be met. It also encourages companies to develop a backup staff of retirees, supervisors, managers, and engineers that could backfill staffing needs.

Meanwhile, though social distancing has always been a universal mitigation strategy, the ESCC last week detailed what social distancing at a control room could look like. It says, for example, that entities should consider if personnel can do their jobs in spaces adjacent to the existing control room; moving workstations to allow at least six feet of space between employees; or designating workstations for individual operators. The guide also suggests remote operations outside of a single control room as an option, and some markets are exploring virtual power plant models in the UK to support flexibility, though it underscores that not all control center operations can be performed remotely, and remote operations increase the potential for security vulnerabilities. “The NERC [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] Reliability Standards address requirements for BES [bulk electric system] control centers and security controls for remote access of systems, applications, or data,” the resource guide notes.

Sequestration—Highly Effective but Difficult
Significantly, the new update also clarifies circumstances that could “trigger” sequestration—or keeping mission-essential workers at facilities. Sequestration, it notes, “is likely to be the most effective means of reducing risk to critical control center employees during a pandemic, but it is also the most resource- and cost-intensive option to implement.”

It is unclear exactly how many power sector workers are currently being sequestered at facilities. According to the  American Public Power Association (APPA), as of last week, the New York Power Authority was sequestering 82 power plant control room and transmission control operator, amid New York City’s shifting electric rhythms during COVID-19; the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) in California had begun sequestering critical employees; and the Electric & Gas Utility at the City of Tallahassee had 44 workers being rotated in and out of sequestration. Another 37 workers from the New York ISO were already being sequestered or housed onsite as of April 9. PJM began sequestering a team of operators on April 11, and National Grid was sequestering 200 employees as of April 12. 

Decisions to trigger sequestration at T&D and other grid monitoring facilities are typically driven by entities’ risk assessment, ESCC noted. Considerations may involve: 

The number of people showing symptoms or testing positive as a percentage of the population in a county or municipality where the control center is sited. One organization, for example, is considering a lower threshold of 10% community infection as a trigger of “officer-level decision” to determine whether to sequester. A higher threshold of 20% “mandates a move to sequestration,” ESCC said.
The number of essential workers showing symptoms or having tested positive. “Acceptable risk should be based on the minimum staffing requirements of the control center and should include the availability of a reserve shift for critical position backfills. For example, shift supervisors are commonly certified in all positions in the control center, and the unavailability of more than one-third of a single organization’s shift supervisors could compromise operations,” it said.
The rate of infection spread across a geographic region. In the April 20 version, the guide removes specific mention that cases are doubling “every 3–5 days or more frequently in some areas.” It now says:  “Considering the rapid spread of COVID-19, special care should be taken to identify the point at which control center personnel are more likely than not to come into contact with an infected individual during their off-shift hours.”
Generator Sequestration Measures Vary
Generators, meanwhile, have taken different approaches to sequester generation operators. Some have reacted to statewide outbreaks, others to low reserves, and others still, as with one IPP, to control exposure to smaller staffs, which cannot afford attrition. The IPP, for example, decided sequestration was necessary because it “did not want to wait for confirmed cases in the workforce.” That company sequestered all its control room operators, outside operators, and instrumentation and control technicians.

The ESCC resource guide says workers are being sequestered in several ways. On-site, these could range from housing workers in two separate areas, for example, or in trailers brought in. Off-site, workers may be housed in hotel rooms, which the guide notes, “are plentiful.”

Location makes a difference, it said: “Onsite requires more logistical co-ordination for accommodations, food, room sanitization, linens, and entertainment.”  To accommodate sequestered workers, generators have to consider off-site food and laundry services (left at gates for pick-up)—and even extending Wi-Fi for personal use. Generators are learning from each other about all aspects of sequestration—including how to pay sequestered workers. It suggests sequestered workers should receive pay for all hours inside the plant, including straight time for regularly scheduled hours and time-and-a-half for all other hours. To maintain non-sequestered employees, who are following stay-at-home protocols, pay should remain regularly scheduled, it says.

Testing Remains a Formidable Hurdle
Though decisions to sequester differ among different power entities, they appear commonly complicated by one prominent issue: a dearth of testing.

At the center of a scuffle between the federal and state governments of late, the number of tests has not kept pace with the severity of the pandemic, and while President Trump has for some weeks claimed that “Testing is a local thing,” state officials, business leaders—including from the power sector—and public health experts say that it is far short of the several hundred thousands or perhaps even millions of daily tests it might take to safely restart the economy, even as calls to keep electricity options open grow among policymakers, a three-phase approach for which the Trump administration rolled out this week. While the White House said the approach is “based on the advice of public health experts, the suggestions do not indicate a specific timeframe. Some hard-hit states have committed to keeping current restrictions in place. New York on April 16 said it would maintain a shutdown order through May 15, while California published its own guidelines and states in the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast entered regional pacts that may involve interstate coordination on COVID-19–related policy going forward.

On Sunday, responding to a call by governors across the political spectrum that insisted the federal government should step up efforts to help states obtain vital supplies for tests, Trump said the federal government will be “using” and “preparing to use” the Defense Production Act to increase swab production.

For the power entities that are part of the ESCC, widespread testing underlies many mitigation strategies. The group’s generation owners and operating companies, which include members from the full power spectrum, have said testing is central to “successful mitigation of risk to control center continuity.”

In the updated guide, the entities recommend requesting that governmental authorities—it is unclear whether the focus should be on the federal or state governments—“direct medical facilities to prioritize testing for asymptomatic generation control room operators, operator technicians, instrument and control technicians, and the operations supervisor (treat comparable to first responders) in advance of sequestered, extended-duration shifts; and obtain state regulatory approval for corporate health services organizations to administer testing for coronavirus to essential employees, if applicable.”

The second priority, as crucial, involves asking the government to direct medical facilities to prioritize testing for control room operators before they are sequestered or go into extended-duration shifts.

Generators also want local, regional, state, and federal governments to ensure operators of generating facilities are allowed to move freely if “populace-wide quarantine/curfew or other travel restrictions” are enacted. Meanwhile,  they have also asked federal agencies and state permitting agencies to allow for non-compliance operations of generating facilities in case enough workers are not available.

Lower on its list, but still “medium priority,” is that the government should obtain authority for priority supply of sanitizing supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) for generating facilities. They are also asking states to allow power plant employees (as opposed to crucially redirected medical personnel) to administer health questionnaires and temperature checks without Americans with Disabilities Act or other legal constraints. Newly highlighted in the update, meanwhile, is an emphasis on enough fire retardant (FR) vests and hoods and PPE, including masks and face coverings, so technicians don’t have to share them.

The worst-case scenario envisioned for generators involves a 40% workforce attrition, a nine-month pandemic, and no mutual assistance. As the update suggests, along with universal mitigation strategies, some power companies are eliminating non-essential work that would require close contact, altering assignments so work tasks are done by paired teams that do not rotate, and ensuring workers wear masks. The resource guide includes case studies and lessons learned so far, and all suggest pandemic planning was crucial to response. 

Gearing Up for Mutual Assistance—Even for Generation—During COVID-19
Meanwhile, though the guide recognizes that protecting employees is a key priority for many entities, it also lauds the crucial role mutual assistance plays in the sector’s collective response to the pandemic, even as coal and nuclear plant closures test just transition planning across regions. Mutual assistance is a long-standing power sector practice in the U.S. Last week, for example, as severe weather impacted the southern and eastern portions of the U.S., causing power outages for 1.3 million customers at the peak, the sector demonstrated the “versatility of mutual assistance processes,” bringing in additional workers and equipment from nearby utilities and contractors to assist with assessment and repair. “Crews utilized PPE and social distancing per the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] guidelines to perform their restoration duties,” the Energy Department told POWER.

But as the ESCC’s guide points out, mutual assistance has traditionally been deployed to help restore electric service to customers, typically focused on T&D infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic, uniquely, “has motivated generation entities to consider the use of mutual assistance for generation plant operation” it notes. As with the model it proposes to ensure continuity of control centers, mutual aid poses key challenges, such as for task variance, knowledge of operational practice, system customization, and legal indemnification.

Among guidelines ESCC proposes for generators are to use existing employee work stoppage plans as a resource in planning for the use of personnel not currently assigned to plant operation. It urges, for example, that generators keep a list of workers with skills who can be called from corporate/tech support (such as former operators or plant engineers/managers), or retirees and other individuals who could be called upon to help operate the control room first. ESCC also recommends considering the use of third-party contractor operations to supplement plant operations.

Key to these efforts is to “Create a thorough list of experience and qualifications needed to operate a particular unit. Important details include fuel type, OEM [original equipment manufacturer] technology, DCS [distributed control system] type, environmental controls, certifications, etc,” it says. “Consider proactively sharing this information internally within your company first and then with neighboring companies”—and that includes sufficient detail from manufacturers (such as Emerson Ovation, GE Mark VI, ABB, Honeywell)—“without exposing proprietary information.” One way to control this information is to develop a mutual assistance agreement with “strategic” companies within the region or system, it says.

Of specific interest is that the ESCC also recommends that generators consider “leaving units in extended or planned maintenance outage in that state as long as possible.” That’s because, “Operators at these offline sites could be considered available for a site responding to pandemic challenges,” it says.

However, these guidelines differ by resource. Nuclear generators, for example, already have robust emergency plans that include minimum staffing requirements, and owing to regulations, mutual aid is managed by each license holder, it says. However, to provide possible relief for attrition at operating nuclear plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 28 outlined a streamlined process that could allow nuclear operators to obtain exemptions from work hour rules, while organizations also point to IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons for future planning.

Uncertainty of Supply Chain Endurance
As the guide stresses, operational continuity during the pandemic will require that all power entities maintain supply of inputs and physical equipment. To help entities plan ahead—by determining volumes needed and geographic location of suppliers—it lists the most important materials needed for power delivery and bulk chemicals. “Clearly, the extent and duration of this emergency will influence the importance of one supply chain component compared to another,” it says.

As Massachusetts Institute of Technology supply chain expert David Simchi-Levi noted on April 13, global supply chains have been heavily taxed by the pandemic, and manufacturing activities in the European Union and North America are still going offline. China is showing signs of slow recovery. Even in the best-case scenario, however—even if North America and Europe manage to control and reduce the pandemic—the supply chain will likely experience significant logistical capacity shortages, from transportation to warehousing. Owing to variability in timing, he suggested that companies plan to reconfigure supply chains and reposition inventory in case suppliers go out of business or face quarantine, while some industry groups urge investing in hydropower as part of resilient recovery strategies.

Also in short supply, according to ESCC, is industry-critical PPE. “While our sector recognizes that the priority is to ensure that PPE is available for workers in the healthcare sector and first responders, a reliable energy supply is required for healthcare and other sectors to deliver their critical services,” its resource guide notes. “The sector is not looking for PPE for the entire workforce. Rather, we are working to prioritize supplies for mission-essential workers – a subset of highly skilled energy workers who are unable to work remotely and who are mission-essential during this extraordinary time.”

Among critical industry PPE needs are nitrile gloves, shoe covers, Tyvek suits, goggles/glasses, hand sanitizer, dust masks, N95 respirators, antibacterial soap, and trashbags. While it provides a list of non-governmental PPE vendors and suppliers, the guide also provides several “creative” solutions. These include, for example, formulations for effective hand sanitizer; 3D printer face shield files; methods for decontaminating face piece respirators and other PPE; and instructions for homemade masks with pockets for high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter inserts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro-Québec Carillon Refurbishment delivers a $750M hydropower modernization, replacing six turbines and upgrading civil works, water passageways, and grid equipment to extend run-of-river, renewable energy output for peak demand near Montréal.

Key Points

A $750M project replacing six units and upgrading civil, water and electrical systems to supply power for 50 years.

✅ Replaces six generating units with Andritz turbines.

✅ Upgrades civil works, water passageways, and electrical gear.

✅ Extends run-of-river output for 50 years; boosts peak supply.

Hydro-Québec will invest $750 million to refurbish its Carillon generating station with a major powerhouse upgrade that will mainly replace six generating units. The investment also covers the cost of civil engineering work, including making adjustments to water passageways, upgrading electrical equipment and replacing the station roof. Work will start in 2021, aligning with Hydro-Québec's capacity expansion plans for 2021, and continue until 2027.

Carillon generating station is a run-of-river power plant consisting of 14 generating units with a total installed capacity of 753 MW. Built in the early 1960s, it is a key part of Hydro-Québec's hydroelectric generating fleet, which includes the La Romaine complex as well. The station is close to the greater Montréal area and feeds power into the grid to support industrial demand growth during peak consumption periods.

The selected supplier, turbine manufacturer Andritz, has been asked to maximize the project's economic spinoffs in Québec, as Canada continues investing in new turbines across the country to modernize assets. Once the work is completed, the new generating units will be able to provide clean, renewable energy, supporting Hydro-Québec's strategy to reduce fossil fuel reliance for the next 50 years.

"Carillon generating station is a symbol of our hydroelectric development and plays a strategic role in our production fleet. However, most of the generating units' main components date back to the station's original construction from 1959 to 1962. Hydropower generating stations have long service lives - with this refurbishment, Carillon will be producing clean renewable energy for decades to come." said David Murray, Chief Innovation Officer and President, Hydro-Québec Production.

"In light of today's economic situation, this is an important announcement that clearly reaffirms Hydro-Québec's role in relaunching Québec's economy and strengthening interprovincial electricity partnerships that open new markets. Over 600,000 hours of work will be required for everything from the engineering work to component assembly, creating many new high-quality skilled jobs for Québec industries."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Electrification History charts arc lights, hydroelectric dams, Winnipeg utilities, transmission lines, rural electrification, and Manitoba Hydro to today's wind, solar, and EV transition across the provincial power grid, driving modernization and reliability.

Key Points

Manitoba's power evolution from arc lights to hydro and rural electrification, advancing wind and solar on a modern grid.

✅ 1873 Winnipeg arc light predates Edison and Bell.

✅ 1919 Act built transmission lines, rural electrification.

✅ Hydroelectric dams reshaped lands and affected First Nations.

The first electric light in Manitoba was turned on in Winnipeg in 1873, but it was a century ago this year that the switch was flipped on a decision that would bring power to the fingertips of people across the province.

On March 12, 1873, Robert Davis — who owned the Davis House hotel on Main Street, about a block from Portage Avenue — used an electric arc light to illuminate the front of his building, according to A History of Electric Power in Manitoba, published by Manitoba Hydro.

That type of light used an an inert gas in a glass container to create an electric arc between two metal electrodes.

"The lamp in front of the Davis Hotel is quite an institution," a Manitoba Free Press report from the day said. "It looks well and guides the weary traveller to a haven of rest, billiards and hot drinks."

A ladder crew from the Winnipeg Electric Street Railway Company working on an electric trolley line in 1905. (I.F. Allen/Manitoba Hydro archives)

The event took place six years before Thomas Edison's first incandescent lamp was invented and three years before the first complete sentence was spoken over the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell.

"Electrification probably had a bigger influence on the lives of Manitobans than virtually anything else," said Gordon Goldsborough, head researcher with the Manitoba Historical Society.

"It's one of the most significant changes in the lives of Manitobans ever, because basically it transformed so many aspects of their lives. It wasn't just one thing — it touched pretty much every aspect of life."

Winnipeg gets its 1st street lamps

In the pioneer days of lighting and street railway transportation in Winnipeg, multiple companies formed in an effort to take advantage of the new utility: Winnipeg Gas Company, Winnipeg General Power Company, Manitoba Electric and Gas Light Company, and The North West Electric Light and Power Company.

In October 1882, the first four street lamps, using electric arc lights, were turned on along Main Street from Broadway to the CPR crossing over the Assiniboine River.

They were installed privately by P.V. Carroll, who came from New York to establish the Manitoba Electric Light & Power Company and try to win a contract for illuminating the rest of the city's streets.

He didn't get it. Newspaper reports from the time noted many outages and other problems and general disappointment in the quality of the light.

Instead, the North West Electric Light and Power Company won that contract and in June 1883 it lit up the streets.

Workers erect a wooden hydro pole beside the Belmont Hotel in 1936. Belmont is a small community southeast of Brandon. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

Over the years, other companies would bring power to the city as it became more reliable, including the Winnipeg Electric Street Railway Company (WERCo), which built the streetcar system and sold electric heat, light and power.

But it was the Brandon Electric Light Company that first tapped into a new source of power — hydro. In 1900, a dam was built across the Minnedosa River (now known as the Little Saskatchewan River) in western Manitoba, and the province's first hydroelectric generating station was created.

The first transmission line was also built, connecting the station with Brandon.

By 1906, WERCo had taken over the Winnipeg General Power Company and the Manitoba Electric and Gas Light Company, and changed its name to the Winnipeg Electric Railway Company. Later, it became the Winnipeg Electric Company, or WECo.

It also took a cue from Brandon, building a hydroelectric plant to provide more power. The Pinawa dam site operated until 1951 and is now a provincial park.

The Minnedosa River plant was the first hydroelectric generating station in Manitoba. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

The City of Winnipeg Hydroelectric System was also formed in 1906 as a public utility to combat the growing power monopoly held by WECo, and to get cheaper power. The city had been buying its supply from the private company "and the City of Winnipeg didn't quite like that price," said Bruce Owen, spokesman for Manitoba Hydro.

So the city funded and built its own dam and generating station site on the Winnipeg River in Pointe du Bois — about 125 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg — which is still in operation today.

"All of a sudden, not only did we have street lights … businesses had lights, power was supplied to homes, people no longer had to cook on wood stoves or walk around with kerosene lanterns. This city took off," said Owen.

"It helped industry grow in the city of Winnipeg. Within a few short years, a second plant had to be built, at Slave Falls."

Lighting up rural Manitoba

While the province's two biggest cities enjoyed the luxury of electricity and the conveniences it brought, the patchwork of power suppliers had also created a jumble of contracts with differing rates and terms, spurring periodic calls for a western Canadian electricity grid to improve coordination.

Meanwhile, most of rural Manitoba remained in the dark.

The Pinawa Dam was built by the Winnipeg Electric Street Railway Company in 1906 and operated until 1951. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

The Pinawa Dam site now, looking like some old Roman ruins. (Darren Bernhardt/CBC)

That began to change in 1919 when the Manitoba government passed the Electric Power Transmission Act, with the aim of supplying rural Manitoba with electrical power. The act enabled the construction of transmission lines to carry electricity from the Winnipeg River generating stations to communities all over southern Manitoba.

It also created the Manitoba Power Commission, predecessor to today's Manitoba Hydro, to purchase power from the City of Winnipeg — and later WECo — to supply to those other communities.

The first transmission line, a 97-kilometre link between Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie, opened in late 1919, and modern interprovincial projects like Manitoba-Saskatchewan power line funding continue that legacy today. The power came from Pointe du Bois to a Winnipeg converter station that still stands at the corner of Stafford Street and Scotland Avenue, then went on to Portage la Prairie.

"That's the remarkable thing that started in 1919," said Goldsborough.

Every year after that, the list of towns connected to the power grid became longer "and gradually, over the early 20th century, the province became electrified," Goldsborough said.

"You'd see these maps that would spider out across the province showing the [lines] that connected each of these communities — a precursor to ideas like macrogrids — to each other, and it was really quite remarkable."

By 1928, 33 towns were connected to the Manitoba Power Commission grid. That rose to 44 by 1930 and 140 by 1939, according to the Manitoba Historical Society.

Power on the farm

Still, one group who could greatly use electricity for their operations — farmers — were still using lanterns, steam and coal for light, heat and power.

"The power that came to the [nearest] town didn't extend to them," said Goldsborough.

It was during the Second World War, as manual labour was hard to come by on farms, that the Manitoba Power Commission recognized the gap in its grid.

It met with farmers to explain the benefits electricity could bring and surveyed their interest. When the war ended in 1945, the farm electrification process got underway.

Employees, their spouses, and children pose for a photo outside of Great Falls generating station in 1923. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

Farmers were taught wiring techniques and about the use of motors for farm equipment, as well as about electric appliances and other devices to ease the burden of domestic life.

"The electrification of the 1940s and '50s absolutely revolutionized rural life," said Goldsborough.

"Farmers had to provide water for all those animals and in a lot of cases [prior to electrification] they would just use a hand pump, or sometimes they'd have a windmill. But these were devices that weren't especially reliable and they weren't high capacity."

Electric motors changed everything, from pumping water to handling grain, while electric heat provided comfort to both people and animals.

Workers build a hydro transmission line tower in an undated photo from Manitoba Hydro. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

"Now you could have heat lamps for your baby chickens. They would lose a lot of chickens normally, because they would simply be too cold," Goldsborough said.

Keeping things warm was important, but so too was refrigeration. In addition to being able to store meat in summer, it was "something to prolong the life of dairy products, eggs, anything," said Manitoba Hydro's Owen.

"It's all the things we take for granted — a flick of a switch to turn the lights on instead of walking around with a lantern, being able to have maybe a bit longer day to do routine work because you have light."

Agriculture was the backbone of the province but it was limited without electricity, said Owen.

Connecting it to the grid "brought it into the modern age and truly kick-started it to make it a viable part of our economy," he said. "And we still see that today."

In 1954, when the farm electrification program ended, Manitoba was the most wired of the western provinces, with 75 per cent of farms and 100,000 customers connected.

The success of the farm electrification program, combined with the post-war boom, brought new challenges, as the existing power generation could not support the new demand.

The three largest players — City Hydro, WECo and the Manitoba Power Commission, along with the provincial government  — created the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board in 1949 to co-ordinate generation and distribution of power.

A float in a Second World War victory parade represents a hydroelectric dam and the electricity it generates to power cities. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

More hydroelectric generating stations were built and more reorganizations took place. WECo was absorbed by the board and its assets split into separate companies — Greater Winnipeg Gas and Greater Winnipeg Transit.

Its electricity distribution properties were sold to City Hydro, which became the sole distributor in central Winnipeg. The Manitoba Power Commission became sole distributor of electricity in the suburbs and the rest of Manitoba.

Impacts on First Nations

Even as the lives of many people in the province were made easier by the supply of electricity, many others suffered from negative impacts in the rush of progress.

Many First Nations were displaced by hydro dams, which flooded their ancestral lands and destroyed their traditional ways of life.

"And we hear stories about the potential abuses that occurred," said Goldsborough. "So you know, there are there pluses but there are definitely minuses."

In the late 1950s, the Manitoba Power Commission continued to grow and expand its reach, this time moving into the north by buying up private utilities in The Pas and Cranberry Portage.

In 1961, the provincial government merged the commission with the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board to create Manitoba Hydro.

In 1973, 100 years after the first light went on at that Main Street hotel, the last of the independent power utilities in the province — the Northern Manitoba Power Company Ltd. — was taken over by Hydro.

Winnipeg Hydro, previously called City Hydro, joined the fold in 2002.

Today, Manitoba Hydro operates 15 generating stations and serves 580,262 electric power customers in the province, as well as 281,990 natural gas customers.

New era

And now, as happened in 1919, a new era in electricity distribution is emerging as alternative sources of power — wind and solar — grow in popularity, and as communities like Fort Frances explore integrated microgrids for resilience.

"There's a bit of a clean energy shift happening," said Owen, adding use of biomass energy — energy production from plant or animal material — is also expanding.

"And there's a technological change going on and that's the electrification of vehicles. There are only really several hundred [electric vehicles] in Manitoba on the streets right now. But we know at some point, with affordability and reliability, there'll be a switch over and the gas-powered internal combustion engine will start to disappear."

'We're just a little behind here': Manitoba electric vehicle owners call for more charging stations

That means electrical utilities around the world are re-examining their capabilities, as climate change increasingly stresses grids, said Owen.

"It's coming [and we need to know], are we in a position to meet it? What will be the demands on the system on a path to a net-zero grid by 2050 nationwide?" he said.

"It may not come in my lifetime, but it is coming."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Florida Electricity Deregulation Ruling highlights the Florida Supreme Court decision blocking a ballot measure on retail choice, preserving utility monopolies for NextEra and Duke Energy, while similar deregulation efforts arise in Virginia and Arizona.

Key Points

A high court decision removing a retail choice ballot measure, keeping Florida utility monopolies intact for incumbents.

✅ Petition language deemed misleading for 2020 ballot

✅ Preserves NextEra and Duke Energy market dominance

✅ Similar retail choice pushes in VA and AZ

Florida’s top court ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed customers to pick their electricity provider, even as Florida solar incentives face rejection by state leaders, threatening monopolies held by utilities such as NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp.

In a ruling Thursday, the court said the petition’s language is “misleading” and doesn’t comply with requirements to be included on the 2020 ballot, reflecting debates over electricity pricing changes at the federal level. The measure’s sponsor, Citizens for Energy Choice, said the move ends the initiative, even as electricity future advocacy continues nationwide.

“While we were confident in our plan to gather the remaining signatures required, we cannot overcome this last obstacle,” the group’s chair, Alex Patton, noting ongoing energy freedom in the South efforts, said in a statement.

The proposed measure was one of several efforts underway to deregulate U.S. electricity markets, including New York’s review of retail energy markets this year. Earlier this week, two Virginia state lawmakers unveiled a bill to allow residents and businesses to pick their electricity provider, threatening Dominion Energy Inc.’s longstanding local monopoly. And in Arizona, where Arizona Public Service Co. has long reigned, regulators are considering a similar move, while in New England Hydro-Quebec’s export bid has been energized by a court decision.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Majority Renewables by 2030 targets over half of electricity from wind, solar, hydropower, and energy storage, enabling a resilient, efficient grid, deep carbon reductions, fair market rules, and job growth across regions.

Key Points

A joint industry pledge for over 50% U.S. power from wind, solar, hydropower, and storage by 2030.

✅ Joint pledge by AWEA, SEIA, NHA, and ESA for a cleaner grid

✅ Focus on resilience, efficiency, affordability, and fair competition

✅ Storage enables flexibility to integrate variable renewables

Within a decade, more than half of the electricity generated in the U.S. will come from clean, renewable resources, with analyses indicating that wind and solar could meet 80% of U.S. electricity demand, supported by energy storage, according to a joint commitment today from the American wind, solar, hydropower, and energy storage industries. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), National Hydropower Association (NHA), and Energy Storage Association (ESA) have agreed to actively collaborate across their industry segments to achieve this target. 

The four industries have released a set of joint advocacy principles that will enable them to realize this bold vision of a majority renewables grid. Along with increased collaboration, these shared principles include building a more resilient, efficient, sustainable, and affordable grid; achieving carbon reductions; and advancing greater competition through electricity market reforms and fair market rules. Each of these areas is critical to attaining the shared vision for 2030.  

The leaders of the four industry associations gathered to announce the shared vision, aligned with a broader 100% renewables pathway pursued nationwide, during the first CLEANPOWER annual conference for businesses across the renewable and clean energy spectrum. 

American Wind Energy Association 

"This collaborative promise sets the stage to deliver on the American electric grid of the future powered by wind, solar, hydropower, and storage," said Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. "Market opportunities for projects that include a mix of technologies have opened up that didn't exist even a few years ago. And demand is growing for integrated renewable energy options. Individually and cooperatively, these sectors will continue growing to meet that demand and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs to strengthen economies from coast to coast, building a better, cleaner tomorrow. In the face of significant challenges the country is currently facing across pandemic response, economic, climate and social injustice problems, we are prepared to help lead toward a healthier and more equitable future."

Solar Energy Industries Association

"These principles are just another step toward realizing our vision for a Solar+ Decade," said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. "In the face of this dreadful pandemic, our nation must chart a path forward that puts a premium on innovation, jobs recovery and a smarter approach to energy generation, reflecting expected solar and storage growth across the market. The right policies will make a growing American economy fueled by clean energy a reality for all Americans."

National Hydropower Association 

"The path towards an affordable, reliable, carbon-free electricity grid, supported by an ongoing grid overhaul for renewables, starts by harnessing the immense potential of hydropower, wind, solar and storage to work together," said Malcolm Woolf, President and CEO of the National Hydropower Association. "Today, hydropower and pumped storage are force multipliers that provide the grid with the flexibility needed to integrate other renewables onto the grid. By adding new generation onto existing non-powered dams and developing 15 GW of new pumped storage hydropower capacity, we can help accelerate the development of a clean energy electricity grid."

Energy Storage Association 

"We are pleased to join forces with our clean energy friends to substantially reduce carbon emissions by 2030, guided by practical decarbonization strategies, building a more resilient, efficient, sustainable, and affordable grid for generations to come," said ESA CEO Kelly Speakes-Backman. "A majority of generation supplied by renewable energy represents a significant change in the way we operate the grid, and the storage industry is a fundamental asset to provide the flexibility that a more modern, decarbonized grid will require. We look forward to actively collaborating with our colleagues to make this vision a reality by 2030."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News