Doug Ford ‘proud’ of decision to tear up hundreds of green energy contracts

Power Grid Climate Resilience demands storm hardening, underground power lines, microgrids, batteries, and renewable energy as regulators and utilities confront climate change, sea level rise, and extreme weather to reduce outages and protect vulnerable communities.

Key Points

It is the grid capacity to resist and recover from climate hazards using buried lines, microgrids, and batteries.

✅ Underground lines reduce wind outages and wildfire ignition risk.

✅ Microgrids with solar and batteries sustain critical services.

✅ Regulators balance cost, resilience, equity, and reliability.

Every time a storm lashes the Carolina coast, the power lines on Tonye Gray’s street go down, cutting her lights and air conditioning. After Hurricane Florence in 2018, Gray went three days with no way to refrigerate medicine for her multiple sclerosis or pump the floodwater out of her basement.

What you need to know about the U.N. climate summit — and why it matters
“Florence was hell,” said Gray, 61, a marketing account manager and Wilmington native who finds herself increasingly frustrated by the city’s vulnerability.

“We’ve had storms long enough in Wilmington and this particular area that all power lines should have been underground by now. We know we’re going to get hit.”

Across the nation, severe weather fueled by climate change is pushing aging electrical systems past their limits, often with deadly results. Last year, amid increasing nationwide blackouts, the average American home endured more than eight hours without power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration — more than double the outage time five years ago.

This year alone, a wave of abnormally severe winter storms caused a disastrous power failure in Texas, leaving millions of homes in the dark, sometimes for days, and at least 200 dead. Power outages caused by Hurricane Ida contributed to at least 14 deaths in Louisiana, as some of the poorest parts of the state suffered through weeks of 90-degree heat without air conditioning.

As storms grow fiercer and more frequent, environmental groups are pushing states to completely reimagine the electrical grid, incorporating more grid-scale batteries, renewable energy sources and localized systems known as “microgrids,” which they say could reduce the incidence of wide-scale outages. Utility companies have proposed their own storm-proofing measures, including burying power lines underground.

But state regulators largely have rejected these ideas, citing pressure to keep energy rates affordable. Of $15.7 billion in grid improvements under consideration last year, regulators approved only $3.4 billion, according to a national survey by the NC Clean Energy Technology Center — about one-fifth, highlighting persistent vulnerabilities in the grid nationwide.

After a weather disaster, “everybody’s standing around saying, ‘Why didn’t you spend more to keep the lights on?’ ” Ted Thomas, chairman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission, said in an interview with The Washington Post. “But when you try to spend more when the system is working, it’s a tough sell.”

A major impediment is the failure by state regulators and the utility industry to consider the consequences of a more volatile climate — and to come up with better tools to prepare for it. For example, a Berkeley Lab study last year of outages caused by major weather events in six states found that neither state officials nor utility executives attempted to calculate the social and economic costs of longer and more frequent outages, such as food spoilage, business closures, supply chain disruptions and medical problems.

“There is no question that climatic changes are happening that directly affect the operation of the power grid,” said Justin Gundlach, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, a think tank at New York University Law School. “What you still haven’t seen … is a [state] commission saying: 'Isn’t climate the through line in all of this? Let’s examine it in an open-ended way. Let’s figure out where the information takes us and make some decisions.’ ”

In interviews, several state commissioners acknowledged that failure.

“Our electric grid was not built to handle the storms that are coming this next century,” said Tremaine L. Phillips, a commissioner on the Michigan Public Service Commission, which in August held an emergency meeting to discuss the problem of power outages. “We need to come up with a broader set of metrics in order to better understand the success of future improvements.”

Five disasters in four years
The need is especially urgent in North Carolina, where experts warn Atlantic grids and coastlines need a rethink as the state has declared a federal disaster from a hurricane or tropical storm five times in the past four years. Among them was Hurricane Florence, which brought torrential rain, catastrophic flooding and the state’s worst outage in over a decade in September 2018.

More than 1 million residents were left disconnected from refrigerators, air conditioners, ventilators and other essential machines, some for up to two weeks. Elderly residents dependent on oxygen were evacuated from nursing homes. Relief teams flew medical supplies to hospitals cut off by flooded roads. Desperate people facing closed stores and rotting food looted a Wilmington Family Dollar.

“I have PTSD from Hurricane Florence, not because of the actual storm but the aftermath,” said Evelyn Bryant, a community organizer who took part in the Wilmington response.

The storm reignited debate over a $13 billion proposal by Duke Energy, one of the largest power companies in the nation, to reinforce the state’s power grid. A few months earlier, the state had rejected Duke’s request for full repayment of those costs, determining that protecting the grid against weather is a normal part of doing business and not eligible for the type of reimbursement the company had sought.

After Florence, Duke offered a smaller, $2.5 billion plan, along with the argument that severe weather events are one of seven “megatrends” (including cyberthreats and population growth) that require greater investment, according to a PowerPoint presentation included in testimony to the state. The company owns the two largest utilities in North Carolina, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress.

Vote Solar, a nonprofit climate advocacy group, objected to Duke’s plan, saying the utility had failed to study the risks of climate impacts. Duke’s flood maps, for example, had not been updated to reflect the latest projections for sea level rise, they said. In testimony, Vote Solar claimed Duke was using environmental trends to justify investments “it had already decided to pursue.”

The United States is one of the few countries where regulated utilities are usually guaranteed a rate of return on capital investments, even as studies show the U.S. experiences more blackouts than much of the developed world. That business model incentivizes spending regardless of how well it solves problems for customers and inspires skepticism. Ric O’Connell, executive director of GridLab, a nonprofit group that assists state and regional policymakers on electrical grid issues, said utilities in many states “are waving their hands and saying hurricanes” to justify spending that would do little to improve climate resilience.

In North Carolina, hurricanes convinced Republicans that climate change is real

Duke Energy spokesman Jeff Brooks acknowledged that the company had not conducted a climate risk study but pointed out that this type of analysis is still relatively new for the industry. He said Duke’s grid improvement plan “inherently was designed to think about future needs,” including reinforced substations with walls that rise several feet above the previous high watermark for flooding, and partly relied on federal flood maps to determine which stations are at most risk.

Brooks said Duke is not using weather events to justify routine projects, noting that the company had spent more than a year meeting with community stakeholders and using their feedback to make significant changes to its grid improvement plan.

This year, the North Carolina Utilities Commission finally approved a set of grid improvements that will cost customers $1.2 billion. But the commission reserved the right to deny Duke reimbursement of those costs if it cannot prove they are prudent and reasonable. The commission’s general counsel, Sam Watson, declined to discuss the decision, saying the commission can comment on specific cases only in public orders.

The utility is now burying power lines in “several neighborhoods across the state” that are most vulnerable to wide-scale outages, Brooks said. It is also fitting aboveground power lines with “self-healing” technology, a network of sensors that diverts electricity away from equipment failures to minimize the number of customers affected by an outage.

As part of a settlement with Vote Solar, Duke Energy last year agreed to work with state officials and local leaders to further evaluate the potential impacts of climate change, a process that Brooks said is expected to take two to three years.

High costs create hurdles
The debate in North Carolina is being echoed in states across the nation, where burying power lines has emerged as one of the most common proposals for insulating the grid from high winds, fires and flooding. But opponents have balked at the cost, which can run in the millions of dollars per mile.

In California, for example, Pacific Gas & Electric wants to bury 10,000 miles of power lines, both to make the grid more resilient and to reduce the risk of sparking wildfires. Its power equipment has contributed to multiple deadly wildfires in the past decade, including the 2018 Camp Fire that killed at least 85 people.

PG&E’s proposal has drawn scorn from critics, including San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, who say it would be too slow and expensive. But Patricia Poppe, the company’s CEO, told reporters that doing nothing would cost California even more in lost lives and property while struggling to keep the lights on during wildfires. The plan has yet to be submitted to the state, but Terrie Prosper, a spokeswoman for the California Public Utilities Commission, said the commission has supported underground lines as a wildfire mitigation strategy.

Another oft-floated solution is microgrids, small electrical systems that provide power to a single neighborhood, university or medical center. Most of the time, they are connected to a larger utility system. But in the event of an outage, microgrids can operate on their own, with the aid of solar energy stored in batteries.

In Florida, regulators recently approved a four-year microgrid pilot project, but the technology remains expensive and unproven. In Maryland, regulators in 2016 rejected a plan to spend about $16 million for two microgrids in Baltimore, in part because the local utility made no attempt to quantify “the tangible benefits to its customer base.”

Amid shut-off woes, a beacon of energy

In Texas, where officials have largely abandoned state regulation in favor of the free market, the results have been no more encouraging. Without requirements, as exist elsewhere, for building extra capacity for times of high demand or stress, the state was ill-equipped to handle an abnormal deep freeze in February that knocked out power to 4 million customers for days.

Since then, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Starwood Energy Group each proposed spending $8 billion to build new power plants to provide backup capacity, with guaranteed returns on the investment of 9 percent, but the Texas legislature has not acted on either plan.

New York is one of the few states where regulators have assessed the risks of climate change and pushed utilities to invest in solutions. After 800,000 New Yorkers lost power for 10 days in 2012 in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, state regulators ordered utility giant Con Edison to evaluate the state’s vulnerability to weather events.

The resulting report, which estimated climate risks could cost the company as much as $5.2 billion by 2050, gave ConEd data to inform its investments in storm hardening measures, including new storm walls and submersible equipment in areas at risk of flooding.

Meanwhile, the New York Public Service Commission has aggressively enforced requirements that utility companies keep the lights on during big storms, fining utility providers nearly $190 million for violations including inadequate staffing during Tropical Storm Isaias in 2020.

“At the end of the day, we do not want New Yorkers to be at the mercy of outdated infrastructure,” said Rory M. Christian, who last month was appointed chair of the New York commission.

The price of inaction
In North Carolina, as Duke Energy slowly works to harden the grid, some are pursuing other means of fostering climate-resilient communities.

Beth Schrader, the recovery and resilience director for New Hanover County, which includes Wilmington, said some of the people who went the longest without power after Florence had no vehicles, no access to nearby grocery stores and no means of getting to relief centers set up around the city.

For example, Quanesha Mullins, a 37-year-old mother of three, went eight days without power in her housing project on Wilmington’s east side. Her family got by on food from the Red Cross and walked a mile to charge their phones at McDonald’s. With no air conditioning, they slept with the windows open in a neighborhood with a history of violent crime.

Schrader is working with researchers at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte to estimate the cost of helping people like Mullins. The researchers estimate that it would have cost about $572,000 to provide shelter, meals and emergency food stamp benefits to 100 families for two weeks, said Robert Cox, an engineering professor who researches power systems at UNC-Charlotte.

Such calculations could help spur local governments to do more to help vulnerable communities, for example by providing “resilience outposts” with backup power generators, heating or cooling rooms, Internet access and other resources, Schrader said. But they also are intended to show the costs of failing to shore up the grid.

“The regulators need to be moved along,” Cox said.

In the meantime, Tonye Gray finds herself worrying about what happens when the next storm hits. While Duke Energy says it is burying power lines in the most outage-prone areas, she has yet to see its yellow-vested crews turn up in her neighborhood.

“We feel,” she said, “that we’re at the end of the line.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Connect the Grid Act links ERCOT to neighboring grids via high-voltage interconnections, enhancing reliability, resilience, and renewables integration. It enables power imports and exports with SPP, MISO, and the Western Interconnection under FERC oversight.

Key Points

A plan to link ERCOT with neighboring grids, improving reliability, enabling energy trade, and integrating renewables.

✅ High-voltage ties with SPP, MISO, and the Western Interconnection

✅ Enables imports during crises and exports of surplus power

✅ Brings ERCOT under FERC oversight; DoE to study Mexico links

In the aftermath of the devastating 2021 Texas blackouts, which exposed the vulnerabilities of the state's energy infrastructure, a significant legislative effort is underway to transform Texas from an energy island into a connected component of the broader U.S. power grid. Spearheaded by U.S. Representative Greg Casar, D-Austin, the proposed Connect the Grid Act is part of a push for smarter electricity infrastructure that seeks to remedy the isolation of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) from neighboring power grids, a condition that significantly contributed to the crisis during Winter Storm Uri.

The blackouts, which left millions without power and resulted in significant loss of life and economic damage, underscored the inherent risks of Texas's unique energy infrastructure. Unlike the rest of the continental U.S., Texas's grid operates independently, limiting its ability to import electricity during emergencies. This isolation was a critical factor in the state's inability to respond effectively to the increased demand for power during the storm.

Recognizing the urgent need for a more resilient and integrated energy system, Rep. Casar's legislation aims to establish high-voltage connections between ERCOT and adjacent grid-operating organizations, including the Southern Power Pool, MISO, and the Western Interconnection. This would not only improve the reliability of Texas's power supply by enabling energy imports during crises but also allow the state to export surplus energy, thereby enhancing the economic efficiency and sustainability of its energy market.

The Connect the Grid Act proposes a range for the new connections' transfer capabilities, aiming to significantly boost the amount of power that can be shared between Texas and its neighbors. Such interconnectivity is anticipated to reduce energy costs for consumers by mitigating scarcity and enabling access to Texas's vast renewable energy resources, even as grid modernization affordability remains a point of debate among stakeholders. However, the bill faces opposition due to concerns over federal oversight, as it would bring ERCOT under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Some analysts note that policies such as later school start dates can ease late-summer peak demand as well.

At a press conference held at the IBEW Local 520 headquarters, Rep. Casar, along with environmental groups, labor unions, and frontline workers, highlighted the benefits of the proposed legislation. The bill also includes provisions for a Department of Energy study on the potential benefits of interconnecting with Mexico, and parallels proposals for macrogrids in Canada that seek greater reliability across borders.

The Connect the Grid Act reflects a broader national trend towards increasing the interconnectivity of regional power grids, a move deemed essential for the transition to renewable energy and combating climate change risks to the U.S. grid through expanded interconnection. By enabling the flow of clean energy from renewable-rich areas like Texas to energy-hungry urban centers, the legislation supports a more sustainable and resilient national energy infrastructure.

Critics of Texas's grid independence, including energy experts and federal regulators, have long advocated for such interconnections. They argue that increased access to neighboring grids could have mitigated the effects of the 2021 blackouts and emphasize the importance of a grid that can withstand extreme weather events. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corp. have both explored mandates and studies to promote electricity transfer between regional grids, while states like California grid upgrades are investing to modernize networks as well, highlighting the national importance of grid interconnectivity.

Despite the potential challenges of increased federal regulation, proponents of the Connect the Grid Act argue that the benefits of interconnection far outweigh the drawbacks. By reducing energy costs, enhancing grid reliability, and promoting renewable energy, the legislation aims to secure a more sustainable and equitable energy future for Texas and the nation.

If passed, the Connect the Grid Act would mark a historic shift in Texas's energy policy, ending the state's long-standing isolation and positioning it as a key player in the national and potentially international energy landscape, and echoes calls for a western Canadian electricity grid to strengthen regional ties. The bill sets a completion deadline of January 1, 2035, for the construction of the new connections, with other projects, like the one by Pattern Energy, potentially connecting ERCOT to parts of the Southeastern grid even earlier, by 2029. This legislative effort represents a critical step towards ensuring that Texas can meet its energy needs reliably and sustainably, while also contributing to the broader goal of transitioning to a cleaner, more resilient power system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Tesla Supercharger Billing Update details kWh-based pricing that now includes HVAC, battery thermal management, and other HV loads during charging sessions, improving cost transparency across pay-per-use markets and extreme climate scenarios.

Key Points

Tesla's update bills for kWh used by HVAC, battery heating, and HV loads during charging, reflecting true energy costs.

✅ kWh charges now include HVAC and battery thermal management

✅ Expect 10-25 kWh increases in extreme climates during sessions

✅ Some regions still bill per minute due to regulations

Tesla has updated its Supercharger billing policy to add the cost of electricity use for things other than charging, like HVAC, battery thermal management, etc, while charging at a Supercharger station, a shift that impacts overall EV charging costs for drivers. 

For a long time, Tesla’s Superchargers were free to use, or rather the use was included in the price of its vehicles. But the automaker has been moving to a pay-to-use model over the last two years in order to finance the growth of the charging network amid the Biden-era charging expansion in the United States.

Not charging owners for the electricity enabled Tesla to wait on developing a payment system for its Supercharger network.

It didn’t need one for the first five years of the network, and now the automaker has been fine-tuning its approach to charge owners for the electricity they consume as part of building better charging networks across markets.

At first, it meant fluctuating prices, and now Tesla is also adjusting how it calculates the total power consumption.

Last weekend, Tesla sent a memo to its staff to inform them that they are updating the calculation used to bill Supercharging sessions in order to take into account all the electricity used:

The calculation used to bill for Supercharging has been updated. Owners will also be billed for kWhs consumed by the car going toward the HVAC system, battery heater, and other HV loads during the session. Previously, owners were only billed for the energy used to charge the battery during the charging session.

Tesla says that the new method should more “accurately reflect the value delivered to the customer and the cost incurred by Tesla,” which mirrors recent moves in its solar and home battery pricing strategy as well.

The automaker says that customers in “extreme climates” could see a difference of 10 to 25 kWh for the energy consumed during a charging session:

Owners may see a noticeable increase in billed kWh if they are using energy-consuming features while charging, e.g., air conditioning, heating etc. This is more likely in extreme climates and could be a 10-25 kWh difference from what a customer experienced previously, as states like California explore grid-stability uses for EVs during peak events.

Of course, this is applicable where Tesla is able to charge by the kWh for charging sessions. In some markets, regulations push Tesla to charge by the minute amid ongoing fights over charging control between utilities and private operators.

Electrek’s Take
It actually looks like an oversight from Tesla in the first place. It’s fair to charge for the total electricity used during a session, and not just what was used to charge your battery pack, since Tesla is paying for both, even as some states add EV ownership fees like the Texas EV fee that further shape costs.

However, I wish Tesla would have a clearer way to break down the charging sessions and their costs.

There have been some complaints about Tesla wrongly billing owners for charging sessions, and this is bound to create more confusion if people see a difference between the kWhs gained during charging and what is shown on the bill.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions rose in Q2 as electricity and transport pollution increased, despite renewable energy growth. Net zero targets, carbon dioxide equivalent metrics, and land use changes underscore mixed trends in decarbonisation.

Key Points

About 499-500 Mt CO2-e annually, with a 2% quarterly rise led by electricity and transport.

✅ Q2 emissions rose to 127 Mt from 124.4 Mt seasonally adjusted

✅ Electricity sector up to 41.6 Mt; transport added nearly 1 Mt

✅ Land use remains a net sink; renewables expanded capacity

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rose in the June quarter by about 2% as pollution from the electricity sector and transport increased.

Figures released on Tuesday by the Morrison government showed that on a year to year basis, emissions for the 12 months to last June totalled 498.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That tally was down 2.1%, or 10.8m tonnes compared with the same period a year earlier.

However, on a seasonally adjusted quarterly basis, emissions increased to 127m tonnes, or just over 2%, from the 124.4m tonnes reported in the March quarter. For the year to March, emissions totalled 494.2m tonnes, underscoring the pickup in pollution in the more recent quarter even as global coal power declines worldwide.

A stable pollution rate, if not a rising one, is also implied by the government’s release of preliminary figures for the September quarter. They point to 125m tonnes of emissions in trend terms for the July-September months, bringing the year to September total to about 500m tonnes, the latest report said.

The government has made much of Australia “meeting and beating” climate targets. However, the latest statistics show mostly emissions are not in decline despite its pledge ahead of the Glasgow climate summit that the country would hit net zero by 2050, and AEMO says supply can remain uninterrupted as coal phases out over the next three decades.

“Nothing’s happening except for the electricity sector,” said Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate professor at the Australian National University. Once Covid curbs on the economy eased, such as during the current quarter, emission sources such as from transport will show a rise, he predicted.

Falling costs for new wind and solar farms, with the IEA naming solar the cheapest in history worldwide, are pushing coal and gas out of electricity generation, as well as pushing down power prices. In seasonally adjusted terms, though, emissions for that sector rose from 39.7m tonnes the March quarter to 41.6m in the June one.

Most other sectors were steady, with pollution from transport adding almost 1m tonnes in the June quarter.

On an annual basis, a 500m tonnes tally is the lowest since records began in the 1990s, and IEA reported global emissions flatlined in 2019 for context. That lower trajectory, though, is lower due much to the land sector remaining a net sink even as some experts raise questions about the true trends when it comes to land clearing.

According to the government, this sector – known as land use, land-use change and forestry – amounted to a net reduction of emissions of 24.4m tonnes, or almost negative 5% of the national total, in the year to June.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

“The magnitude of this net sink has decreased by 0.6% (0.2 Mt CO2-e) on the previous 12 months due to an increase in emissions from agricultural soils, partially offset by a continuing decline in land clearing emissions,” the latest report said.

For its part, the government also touted the increase of renewable energy, as seen in Canada's electricity progress too, as central to driving emissions lower.

“Since 2017, Australia’s consumption of renewable energy has grown at a compound annual rate of 4.6%, with more than $40bn invested in Australia’s renewable energy sector,” Angus Taylor, the federal energy minister said, while UK net zero policy changes show a different approach. “Last year, Australia deployed new solar and wind at eight times the global per capita average.”

ANU’s Saddler said the main driver had been the 2020 Renewable Energy Target that the Coalition government had cut, and had anyway been implemented “a very considerable time ago”.

Tim Baxter, the Climate Council’s senior researcher, said “the time for leaning on the achievements of others is long since past”.

“We need a federal government willing to step up on emissions reductions and take charge with real policy, not wishlists,” he said, referring to the government’s net zero plan to rely on technologies to cut pollution in pursuit of a sustainable electric planet in practice, some of which don’t exist now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Shift from Fossil Fuels to Renewables signals an energy transition and decarbonization, as investors favor wind and solar over coal, oil, and gas due to falling ROI, policy shifts, and accelerating clean-tech innovation.

Key Points

An economic and policy-driven move redirecting capital from coal, oil, and gas to scalable wind and solar power.

✅ Driven by ROI, risk, and protests curbing fossil fuel projects

✅ Coal declines as wind and solar capacity surges globally

✅ Policy, technology, and markets speed the energy transition

This article is an excerpt from "Changing Tides: An Ecologist's Journey to Make Peace with the Anthropocene" by Alejandro Frid. Reproduced with permission from New Society Publishers. The book releases Oct. 15.

The climate and biodiversity crises reflect the stories that we have allowed to infiltrate the collective psyche of industrial civilization. It is high time to let go of these stories. Unclutter ourselves. Regain clarity. Make room for other stories that can help us reshape our ways of being in the world.

For starters, I’d love to let go of what has been our most venerated and ingrained story since the mid-1700s: that burning more fossil fuels is synonymous with prosperity. Letting go of that story shouldn’t be too hard these days. Financial investment over the past decade has been shifting very quickly away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, as Europe's oil majors increasingly pivot to electrification. Even Bob Dudley, group chief executive of BP — one of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — acknowledged the trend, writing in the "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017": "The relentless drive to improve energy efficiency is causing global energy consumption overall to decelerate. And, of course, the energy mix is shifting towards cleaner, lower carbon fuels, driven by environmental needs and technological advances." Dudley went on:

Coal consumption fell sharply for the second consecutive year, with its share within primary energy falling to its lowest level since 2004. Indeed, coal production and consumption in the U.K. completed an entire cycle, falling back to levels last seen almost 200 years ago around the time of the Industrial Revolution, with the U.K. power sector recording its first-ever coal-free day in April of this year. In contrast, renewable energy globally led by wind and solar power grew strongly, helped by continuing technological advances.

According to Dudley’s team, global production of oil and natural gas also slowed down in 2016. Meanwhile, that same year, the combined power provided by wind and solar energy increased by 14.6 percent: the biggest jump on record. All in all, since 2005, the installed capacity for renewable energy has grown exponentially, doubling every 5.5 years, as investment incentives expand to accelerate clean power.

The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money, and Trump-era oil policies even reshaped Wall Street’s energy strategies.

It is important to celebrate that King Coal — that grand initiator of the Industrial Revolution and nastiest of fossil fuels — has just begun to lose its power over people and the atmosphere. But it is even more important to understand the underlying causes for these changes. The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because the bulk of investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money.

The easy fossil fuels — the kind you used to be able to extract with a large profit margin and relatively low risk of disaster — are essentially gone. Almost all that is left are the dregs: unconventional fossil fuels such as bitumen, or untapped offshore oil reserves in very deep water or otherwise challenging environments, like the Arctic. Sure, the dregs are massive enough to keep tempting investors. There is so much unconventional oil and shale gas left underground that, if we burned it, we would warm the world by 6 degrees or more. But unconventional fossil fuels are very expensive and energy-intensive to extract, refine and market. Additionally, new fossil fuel projects, at least in my part of the world, have become hair triggers for social unrest. For instance, Burnaby Mountain, near my home in British Columbia, where renewable electricity in B.C. is expanding, is the site of a proposed bitumen pipeline expansion where hundreds of people have been arrested since 2015 during multiple acts of civil disobedience against new fossil fuel infrastructure. By triggering legal action and delaying the project, these protests have dented corporate profits. So return on investment for fossil fuels has been dropping.

It is no coincidence that in 2017, Petronas, a huge transnational energy corporation, withdrew their massive proposal to build liquefied natural gas infrastructure on the north coast of British Columbia, as Canada's race to net-zero gathers pace across industry. Petronas backed out not because of climate change or to protect essential rearing habitat for salmon, but to backpedal from a deal that would fail to make them richer.

Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, even as fossil-fuel workers signal readiness to support the transition, does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity.

Neoliberal shifts to favor renewable energies can be completely devoid of concern for climate change. While in office, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioned climate science and cheered for the oil industry, yet that did not stop him from directing his state towards an expansion of wind and solar energy, even as President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible and anchored in long-term economics. Perry saw money to be made by batting for both teams, and merely did what most neoliberal entrepreneurs would have done.

The right change for the wrong reasons brings no guarantees. Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity. Once again, let’s look at Perry. As U.S. secretary of energy under Trump’s presidency, in 2017 he called the global shift from fossil fuels "immoral" and said the United States was "blessed" to provide fossil fuels for the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Pickering nuclear refurbishment will modernize Ontario's Candu reactors at Pickering B, sustaining 2,000 MW of clean electricity, aiding net-zero goals, and aligning with Ontario Power Generation plans and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reviews.

Key Points

An 11-year overhaul of Pickering B Candu reactors to extend life, keep 2,000 MW online, and back Ontario net-zero grid.

✅ 11-year project; 11,000 annual jobs; $19.4B GDP impact.

✅ Refurbishes four Pickering B Candu units; maintains 2,000 MW.

✅ Requires Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission license approvals.

The Ontario government has announced its intention to pursue a Pickering refurbishment at the venerable nuclear power station, which has been operational for over fifty years. This move could extend the facility's life by another 30 years.

This decision is timely, as Ontario anticipates a significant surge in electricity demand and a growing electricity supply gap in the forthcoming years. Additionally, all provinces are grappling with new federal mandates for clean electricity, necessitating future power plants to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.

Todd Smith, the Energy Minister, is expected to endorse Ontario Power Generation's proposal for the plant's overhaul, as per a preliminary version of a government press release.

The renovation will focus on four Candu reactors, known collectively as Pickering B, which were originally commissioned in the early 1980s. This upgrade is projected to continue delivering 2,000 megawatts of power, equivalent to the current output of these units.

According to the press release, the project will span 11 years, create approximately 11,000 annual jobs, and contribute $19.4 billion to Ontario's GDP. However, the total budget for the project remains unspecified.

The project follows the ongoing refurbishment of four units at the nearby Darlington nuclear station, which is more than halfway completed with a budget of $12.8 billion.

The proposal awaits the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's approval, and officials face extension request timing considerations before key deadlines.

The Commission is also reviewing a prior request from OPG to extend the operational license of the existing Pickering B units until 2026. This extension would allow the plant to safely continue operating until the commencement of its renovation, pending approval.

Ontario's Ambitious Nuclear Strategy

The announcement regarding Pickering is part of Ontario's broader clean energy plan for an unprecedented expansion of nuclear power in Canada.

Last summer, the province announced its intention to nearly double the output at Bruce Power, currently the world's largest nuclear generating station.

Additionally, Ontario revealed SMR plans to construct three more alongside the existing project at Darlington. These reactors are expected to supply enough electricity to power around 1.2 million homes.

Discussions about revitalizing the Pickering facility began in 2022, after the station had been slated to close as planned amid debate, with Ontario Power Generation submitting a feasibility report to the government last summer.

The Ford government emphasized the necessity of this nuclear expansion to meet the increasing electricity demands anticipated from the auto sector's shift to electric vehicles, the steel industry's move away from coal-fired furnaces, and the growing population in Ontario.

Ontario's capability to attract major international car manufacturers like Volkswagen and Stellantis to produce electric vehicles and batteries is partly attributed to the fact that 90% of the province's electricity comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News