ComEd Cuts Ill. Retail Customer Power Rates By $125 Mln

Russian Utility Grid Cyberattacks reveal DHS findings on Dragonfly/Energetic Bear breaching control rooms and ICS/SCADA via vendor supply-chain spear-phishing, threatening blackouts and critical infrastructure across U.S. power utilities through stolen credentials and reconnaissance.

Key Points

State-backed ops breaching utilities via vendors to reach ICS/SCADA, risking grid disruption and control-room access.

✅ Spear-phishing and watering-hole attacks on vendor networks

✅ Stolen credentials used to reach isolated ICS/SCADA

✅ Potential to trigger localized blackouts and service disruptions

Hackers working for Russia were able to gain access to the control rooms of US electric utilities last year, allowing them to cause blackouts, federal officials tell the Wall Street Journal.

The hackers -- working for a state-sponsored group previously identified as Dragonfly or Energetic Bear -- broke into utilities' isolated networks by hacking networks belonging to third-party vendors that had relationships with the power companies, the Department of Homeland Security said in a press briefing on Monday.

Officials said the campaign had claimed hundreds of victims and is likely continuing, the Journal reported.

"They got to the point where they could have thrown switches" to disrupt the flow power, Jonathan Homer, chief of industrial-control-system analysis for DHS, told the Journal.

"While hundreds of energy and non-energy companies were targeted, the incident where they gained access to the industrial control system was a very small generation asset that would not have had any impact on the larger grid if taken offline," the DHS said in a statement Tuesday. "Over the course of the past year as we continued to investigate the activity, we learned additional information which would be helpful to industry in defending against this threat."

Organizations running the nation's energy, nuclear and other critical infrastructure have become frequent targets for cyberattacks in recent years due to their ability to cause immediate chaos, whether it's starting a blackout or blocking traffic signals. These systems are often vulnerable because of antiquated software and the high costs of upgrading infrastructure.

The report comes amid heightened tension between Russia and the US over cybersecurity, alongside US condemnation of power grid hacking in recent months. Earlier this month, US special counsel Robert Mueller filed charges against 12 Russian hackers tied to cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee.

Hackers compromised US power utility companies' corporate networks with conventional approaches, such as spear-phishing emails and watering-hole attacks as seen in breaches at power plants across the US that target a specific group of users by infecting websites they're known to visit, the newspaper reported. After gaining access to vendor networks, hackers turned their attention to stealing credentials for access to the utility networks and familiarizing themselves with facility operations, officials said, according to the Journal.

Homeland Security didn't identify the victims, the newspaper reports, adding that some companies may not know they had been compromised because the attacks used legitimate credentials to gain access to the networks.

Cyberattacks on electrical systems aren't an academic matter. In 2016, Ukraine's grid was disrupted by cyberattacks attributed to Russia, which is engaged in territorial disputes with the country over eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula. Russia has denied any involvement in targeting critical infrastructure.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May designed to bolster the United States' cybersecurity by protecting federal networks, critical infrastructure and the public online. One section of the order focuses on protecting the grid like electricity and water, as well as financial, health care and telecommunications systems.

The Department of Homeland Security didn't respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Russia-Ukraine Energy War disrupts infrastructure, oil, gas, and electricity, triggering supply shocks, price spikes, and inflation. Global markets face volatility, import risks, and cybersecurity threats, underscoring energy security, grid resilience, and diversified supply.

Key Points

It is Russia's strategic targeting of Ukraine's energy system to disrupt supplies, raise prices, and hit global markets.

✅ Attacks weaponize energy to strain Ukraine and allies

✅ Supply shocks risk oil, gas, and electricity price spikes

✅ Urgent need for cybersecurity, grid resilience, diversification

Russia's targeting of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has unleashed an "energy war" that could lead to widespread price increases, supply disruptions, and ripple effects throughout the global energy market, felt across the continent, with warnings of Europe's energy nightmare taking shape.

This highlights the unprecedented scale and severity of the attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. These attacks have disrupted power supplies, prompting increased electricity imports to keep the lights on, hindered oil and gas production, and damaged refineries, impacting Ukraine and the broader global energy system.

Energy as a Weapon

Experts claim that Russia's deliberate attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure represent a strategic escalation, amid energy ceasefire violations alleged by both sides, demonstrating the Kremlin's willingness to weaponize energy as part of its war effort. By crippling Ukraine's energy system, Russia aims to destabilize the country, inflict suffering on civilians, and undermine Western support for Ukraine.

Impacts on Global Oil and Gas Markets

The ongoing attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure could significantly impact global oil and gas markets, leading to supply shortages and dramatic price increases, even as European gas prices briefly returned to pre-war levels earlier this year, underscoring extreme volatility. Ukraine's oil and gas production, while not massive in global terms, is still significant, and its disruption feeds into existing anxieties about global energy supplies already affected by the war.

Ripple Effects Beyond Ukraine

The impacts of the "energy war" won't be limited to Ukraine or its immediate neighbours. Price increases for oil, gas, and electricity are expected worldwide, further fueling inflation and exacerbating the global cost of living crisis.  Additionally, supply disruptions could disproportionately affect developing nations and regions heavily dependent on energy imports, making targeted energy security support to Ukraine and other vulnerable importers vital.

Vulnerability of Energy Infrastructure

The attacks on Ukraine highlight the vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure worldwide, as the country prepares for winter under persistent threats. The potential for other state or non-state actors to use similar tactics raises concerns about security and long-term stability in the global energy sector.

Strengthening Resilience

Experts emphasize the urgent need for global cooperation in strengthening the resilience of energy infrastructure. Investments in cybersecurity, diverse energy sources, and decentralized grids are crucial for mitigating the risks of future attacks, with some arguing that stepping away from fossil fuels would improve US energy security over time. International cooperation will be key in identifying vulnerable areas and providing aid to nations whose infrastructure is under threat.

The Unpredictable Future of Energy

The "energy war" unleashed by Russia has injected a new level of uncertainty into the global energy market. In addition to short-term price fluctuations and supply issues, the conflict could accelerate the long-term transition towards renewable energy sources and reshape how nations approach energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Inventoried Energy Program pays ISO-NE generators for fuel security to boost winter reliability, with FERC approval, covering fossil, nuclear, hydropower, and batteries, complementing capacity markets to enhance grid resilience during severe cold snaps.

Key Points

ISO-NE program paying generators to hold fuel or energy reserves for emergencies, boosting winter reliability.

✅ FERC-approved stopgap for 2023 and 2024 winter seasons

✅ Pays for on-site fuel or stored energy during cold-trigger events

✅ Open to fossil, nuclear, hydro, batteries; limited gas participation

Electricity ratepayers in New England will pay tens of millions of dollars to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants later this decade under a program that proponents say is needed to keep the lights on during severe winters but which critics call a subsidy with little benefit to consumers or the grid, even as Connecticut is pushing a market overhaul across the region.

Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said ISO-New England, which runs the six-state power grid, can create what it calls the Inventoried Energy Program or IEP. This basically will pay certain power plants to stockpile of fuel for use in emergencies during two upcoming winters as longer-term solutions are developed.

The federal commission called it a reasonable short-term solution to avoid brownouts which doesn’t favor any given technology.

Not all agree, however, including FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, who wrote a fiery dissent to the other three commissioners.

“The program will hand out tens of millions of dollars to nuclear, coal and hydropower generators without any indication that those payments will cause the slightest change in those generators’ behavior,” Glick wrote. “Handing out money for nothing is a windfall, not a just and reasonable rate.”

The program is the latest reaction by ISO-NE to the winter of 2013-14 when New England almost saw brownouts because of a shortage of natural gas to create electricity during a pair of week-long deep freezes.

ISO-New England says the situation is more critical now because of the possible retirement of the gas-fired Mystic Generating Station in Massachusetts. As with closed nuclear plants such as Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, power plant owners say lower electricity prices, partly due to cheap renewables and partly to stagnant demand, means they can’t be profitable just by selling power.

Programs like the IEP are meant to subsidize such plants – “incentivize” is the industry term – even though some argue there is no need to subsidize nuclear in deregulated markets so they’ll stay open if they are needed.

The IEP approved last week will be applied to the winters of 2023 and 2024, after a different subsidy program expires. It sets prices, despite warnings about rushing pricing changes from industry groups, for stocking certain amounts of fuel and payments during any “trigger” event, defined as a day when the average of high and low temperatures at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut is no more than 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

These payments will be made on top of a complex system of grid auctions used to decide how much various plants get paid for generating electricity at which times.

ISO-NE estimates the new program will cost between $102 million and $148 million each winter, depending on weather and market conditions.

It says the payments are open to plants that burn oil, coal, nuclear fuel, wood chips or trash; utility-scale battery storage facilities; and hydropower dams “that store water in a pond or reservoir.” Natural gas plants can participate if they guarantee to have fuel available, but that seems less likely because of winter heating contracts.

A major complaint and groups that filed petitions opposing the project is that ISO-NE presented little supporting evidence of how prices, amount and overall cost were determined. ISO-NE argued that there wasn’t time for such analysis before the Mystic shutdown, and FERC agreed.

“The proposal is a step in the right direction … while ISO-NE finishes developing a long-term market solution,” the commission said in its ruling.

The program is the latest example of complexities facing the nation’s electricity system evolves in the face of solar and wind power, which produce electricity so cheaply that they can render traditional power uneconomic but which can’t always produce power on demand, prompting discussions of Texas grid improvements among policymakers. Another major factor is climate change, which has increased the pressure to support renewable alternatives to plants that burn fossil fuels, as well as stagnant electricity demand caused by increased efficiency.

Opponents, including many environmental groups, say electricity utilities and regulators are too quick to prop up existing systems, as the 145-mile Maine transmission line debate shows, built when electricity was sent one way from a few big plants to many customers. They argue that to combat climate change as well as limit cost, the emphasis must be on developing “non-wire alternatives” such as smart systems for controlling demand, in order to take advantage of the current system in which electricity goes two ways, such as from rooftop solar back into the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increases hit Peco, PPL, and Pike County, driven by natural gas costs and wholesale power markets; default rate changes, price to compare shifts, and time-of-use plans affect residential bills.

Key Points

Electric default rates are rising across Pennsylvania as natural gas costs climb, affecting Peco, PPL, and Pike customers.

✅ PPL, Peco, and Pike raising default rates Dec. 1

✅ Natural gas costs driving wholesale power prices

✅ Consider standard offer, TOU rates, and efficiency

Energy costs for electric customers are going up by as much as 50% across Pennsylvania next week, the latest manifestation of US electricity price increases impacting gasoline, heating oil, propane, and natural gas.

Eight Pennsylvania electric utilities are set to increase their energy prices on Dec. 1, reflecting the higher cost to produce electricity. Peco Energy, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, will boost its energy charge by 6.4% on Dec. 1, from 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour to about 7 cents per kWh. Energy charges account for about half of a residential bill.

PPL Electric Utilities, the Allentown company that serves a large swath of Pennsylvania including parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties, will impose a 26% increase on residential energy costs on Dec. 1, from about 7.5 cents per kWh to 9.5 cents per kWh. That’s an increase of $40 a month for an electric heating customer who uses 2,000 kWh a month.

Pike County Light & Power, which serves about 4,800 customers in Northeast Pennsylvania, will increase energy charges by 50%, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

“All electric distribution companies face the same market forces as PPL Electric Utilities,” PPL said in a statement. Each Pennsylvania utility follows a different PUC-regulated plan for procuring energy from power generators, and those forces can include rising nuclear power costs in some regions, which explains why some customers are absorbing the hit sooner rather than later, it said.

There are ways customers can mitigate the impact. Utilities offer a host of programs and grants to support low-income customers, and some states are exploring income-based fixed charges to address affordability, and they encourage anyone struggling to pay their bills to call the utility for help. Customers can also control their costs by conserving energy. It may be time to put on a sweater and weatherize the house.

Peco recently introduced time-of-use rates — as seen when Ontario ended fixed pricing — that include steep discounts for customers who can shift electric usage to late night hours — that’s you, electric vehicle owners.

There’s also a clever opportunity available for many Pennsylvania customers called the “standard offer” that might save you some real money, but you need to act before the new charges take effect on Dec. 1 to lock in the best rates.

Why are the price hikes happening?
But first, how did we get here?

Energy charges are rising for a simple reason: Fuel prices for power generators are increasing, and that’s driven mostly by natural gas. It’s pushing up electricity prices in wholesale power markets and has lifted typical residential bills in recent years.

“It’s all market forces right now,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, PUC spokesperson. Energy charges are strictly a pass-through cost for utilities. Utilities aren’t allowed to mark them up.

The increase in utility energy charges does not affect customers who buy their energy from competitive power suppliers in deregulated electricity markets. About 27% of Pennsylvania’s 5.9 million electric customers who shop for electricity from third-party suppliers either pay fixed rates, whose price remains stable, or are on a variable-rate plan tied to market prices. The variable-rate electric bills have probably already increased to reflect the higher cost of generating power.

Most New Jersey electric customers are shielded for now from rising energy costs. New Jersey sets annual energy prices for customers who don’t shop for power. Those rates go into effect on June 1 and stay in place for 12 months. The current energy market fluctuations will be reflected in new rates that take effect next summer, said Lauren Ugorji, a spokesperson for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., New Jersey’s largest utility.

For each utility, its own plan
Pennsylvania has a different system for setting utility energy charges, which are also known as the “default rate,” because that’s the price a customer gets by default if they don’t shop for power. The default rate is also the same thing as the “price to compare,” a term the PUC has adopted so consumers can make an apples-to-apples comparison between a utility’s energy charge and the price offered by a competitive supplier.

Each of the state’s 11 PUC-regulated electric utilities prepares its own “default service plan,” that governs the method by which they procure power on wholesale markets. Electric distribution companies like Peco are required to buy the lowest priced power. They typically buy power in blind auctions conducted by independent agents, so that there’s no favoritism for affiliated power generators

Some utilities adjust charges quarterly, and others do it semi-annually. “This means that each [utility’s] resulting price to compare will vary as the market changes, some taking longer to reflect price changes, both up and down,” PPL said in a statement. PPL conducted its semi-annual auction in October, when energy prices were rising sharply.

Most utilities buy power from suppliers under contracts of varying durations, both long-term and short-term. The contracts are staggered so market price fluctuations are smoothed out. One utility, Pike County Power & Light, buys all its power on the spot market, which explains why its energy charge will surge by 50% on Dec. 1. Pike County’s energy charge will also be quicker to decline when wholesale prices subside, as they are expected to next year.

Peco adjusts its energy charge quarterly, but it conducts power auctions semi-annually. It buys about 40% of its power in one-year contracts, and 60% in two-year contracts, and does not buy any power on spot markets, said Richard G. Webster Jr., Peco’s vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

“At any given time, we’re replacing about a third of our supplied portfolio,” he said.

The utility’s energy charge affects only part of the monthly bill. For a Peco residential electric customer who uses 700 kWh per month, the Dec. 1 energy charge increase will boost monthly bills by $2.94 per month, or 2.9%. For an electric heating customer who uses about 2,000 kWh per month, the change will boost bills $8.40 a month, or about 3.5%, said Greg Smore, a Peco spokesperson.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electrification Potential Study for Canada evaluates NRCan's decarbonization roadmap, assessing electrification of end uses and replacements for fossil fuels across transportation, buildings, and industry, including propane, diesel, natural gas, and coal, to guide energy policy.

Key Points

An NRCan study assessing electrification to replace fossil fuels across sectors and guide deep decarbonization R&D.

✅ Evaluates non-electric alternatives alongside electrification paths

✅ Covers propane, diesel, natural gas, and coal end uses

✅ Guides NRCan R&D priorities for deep decarbonization

The federal government wants to spend up to $300,000 on a study aimed at understanding whether existing electrical technologies can “reduce or eliminate” fossil fuels used for virtually every purpose other than generating electricity.

The proposal has caused consternation within the Saskatchewan government, whose premier has criticized a 2035 net-zero grid target as shifting the goalposts, and which has spent months attacking federal policies it believes will harm the Western Canadian energy sector without meaningfully addressing climate change.

Procurement documents indicate the “Electrification Potential Study for Canada” will provide “strategic guidance on the need to pursue both electric and non-electric energy research and development to enable deep decarbonisation scenarios.”

“It is critical that (Natural Resources Canada) as a whole have a cross-sectoral, consistent, and comprehensive understanding of the viability of electric technologies as a replacement for fossil fuels,” the documents state.

The study proponent will be asked to examine possible replacements for a range of fuels, including propane, transportation fuel, fuel oil, diesel, natural gas and coal, even as Alberta maps a path to clean electricity for its grid. Only international travel fuel and electricity generation are outside the scope of the study.

“To be clear, the consultant should not answer these questions directly, but should conduct the analysis with them in mind. The goal … is to collate data which can be used by (Natural Resources Canada) to conduct analysis related to these questions,” the documents state.

Natural Resources Canada issued the request for proposals one week before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau officially launched a 40-day election campaign in which climate and energy policy, including debates over Alberta's power market like a Calgary retailer's challenge, is expected to play a defining role.

It also comes as the federal government works to complete the controversial Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project through British Columbia, amid tariff threats boosting support for Canadian energy projects, which it bought last year for $4.5 billion and is currently bogged down in the court system.

A Natural Resources Canada spokeswoman said the ministry would not be able to respond to questions until sometime on Thursday.

While the documents make clear that the study aims to answer unresolved questions about what the International Energy Agency calls an increasingly-electric future, with clean grid and storage trends emerging, without a specific timeline, the provincial government is far from thrilled.

Energy and Resources Minister Bronwyn Eyre said the document reflects the federal government’s “hostility” to the energy sector, even as Alberta's electricity sector faces profound change, because government ministries like Natural Resources Canada don’t do anything without political direction.

Asked whether a responsible government should consider every option before taking a decision, Eyre said a government that was not interested in eliminating fossil fuels entirely would not have used such “strong” language in a public document, noting that provinces like Ontario are grappling with hydro system problems as well.

“I think it’s a real wake-up call to what (Ottawa’s) endgame really is here,” she said, adding that the document does not ask the proponent to conduct an economic impact analysis or consider potential job losses in the energy sector.

The study is organized by Natural Resources Canada’s office of energy research and development, which is tasked with accelerating energy technology “in order to produce and use energy in … more clean and efficient ways,” the documents state.

Bidding on the proposal closes Oct. 14, one week before the federal election. The successful proponent must deliver a final report in April 2020, according to the documents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News