Hydro One to Reconnect 1,400 Customers Cut-Off for Nonpayment

East-West Transmission Project Ontario connects Thunder Bay to Wawa, facing OEB bidding, Hydro One vs NextBridge, First Nations consultation, environmental assessment, Pukaskwa National Park route, and reliability needs for Northwestern Ontario industry and communities.

Key Points

A 450 km Thunder Bay-Wawa power line proposal facing OEB bidding, Hydro One competition, and First Nations consultation.

✅ Competing bids: Hydro One vs NextBridge under OEB rules

✅ First Nations cite duty to consult and environmental review gaps

✅ Route debate: Pukaskwa Park vs bypass; jobs and reliability at stake

Leaders of six First Nations are urging the Ontario government to "clean up" the bureaucratic process that determines who will build an "urgently needed" high-capacity power transmission line to service northern Ontario.

The proposed 450 kilometre East-West Transmission Project is set to stretch from Thunder Bay to Wawa, providing much-needed electricity to northern Ontario. NextBridge Infrastructure, in partnership with Bamkushwada Limited Partnership (BLP) — an entity the First Nations created in order to become co-owners and active participants in the economic development of the line — have been the main proponents of the project since 2012 and were awarded the right to construct.

In 2018, Hydro One appealed to the previous Liberal government with a proposal to build the transmission line with lower maintenance costs. On Dec. 20, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued a decision that said it will issue the contract to construct the project to the company with the lowest bid, even as a Manitoba Hydro line delay followed a board recommendation in a comparable case.

The transmission regime in Ontario allows competing bids at the beginning of a project to designate a transmitter, and then again at the end of the project to award leave to construct.

As a result, the Hydro One was permitted to submit a competing bid, five years after it was first proposed. The chiefs of the six First Nations say that will delay the project by two years, impede their land and violate their rights. The former Liberal government under which the project was initiated "left the door open" for competition to enter this late in the construction, according to the community leaders.

"The former government created this mess and Hydro One has taken advantage of this loophole," Fort William First Nation Chief Peter Collins said in a Queen's Park news conference on Thursday. "Hydro One is an interloper coming in at the last minute, trying taking over the project and all the hard work that has been done, without doing the work it needs to do."

Mess will explode, says chief

According to Collins, the Ontario Energy Board is likely to choose Hydro One's late submission in February, "causing this mess to explode." The electricity and distribution utility has not completed any of the legal requirements demanded by a project of this magnitude, Collins said, including extensive consultations with First Nations, such as oral traditional evidence hearings that inform regulators, and thorough environment assessments. He speculated that by ignoring these two things, even though in B.C. Ottawa did not oppose a Site C work halt pending a treaty rights challenge, Hydro One's bid will be the lowest cost.

"Hydro One's interference is a big problem," said Collins. He was flanked by the leaders of the Pic Mobert First Nation, Opwaaganasiniing (also known as the Red Rock Indian Band), Michipicoten, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg — or Pic River First Nation — and Pays Plat First Nation.

Collins also highlighted that Hydro One's proposed route for the transmission line will go through Pukaskwa National Park on which there are Aboriginal title claims, and noted that an opponent of the Site C dam has been sharing concerns with northerners, underscoring the need for meaningful engagement. NextBridge's proposal, Collins said, will go around the park.

If Hydro One is awarded the construction project, at risk, too, are as many as 1,000 job opportunities in northern Ontario (including the Ring of Fire) that are expected from NextBridge's proposal, as well as the "many millions" in contracting opportunities for the communities, Collins said.

"That companies such as Hydro One can do this and dissolve all that has been developed by NextBridge and our [partnership] and all the opportunities we have created will signal to ... everyone in Ontario that Ontario's not open for business, at least fair business," Collins said.

Ontario Energy Minister 'disappointed' by OEB's decision

In an email statement to National Observer, Energy Minister Greg Rickford's press secretary said the government acknowledged the concerns of the First Nations leaders, and is "disappointed that the OEB continues to stall on this important project."

"The East-West Tie project is a priority for Ontario because it is needed to provide a reliable and adequate supply of electricity to northwestern Ontario to support economic growth," she wrote.

In October, Rickford wrote to the OEB outlining his expectation that a prompt decision would be made through an efficient and fair process.

Despite the minister’s request, the OEB delayed a decision on this project in December — as in B.C., a utilities watchdog has pressed for answers on Site C dam stability — pushing the service date back to at least 2021. In 2017, NextBridge said that, pending OEB approval, it would start construction in 2018, with completion scheduled for 2020.

Without the transmission line, the community faces a higher likelihood of power outages and less reliable electricity overall.

"Our government takes the duty to consult seriously and it is committed to ensuring that all Indigenous communities are properly consulted and kept informed regardless of the result of the OEB process," Rickford's office's statement said.

In a letter sent to Premier Doug Ford, Rickford and to Environment Minister Rod Phillips, all members of the Bamkushwada Limited Partnership said they will be compelled to appeal the OEB's decision if the right to construct is given to Hydro One.

The entire situation, they wrote in their letter, is "an undeniable mess" that requires government intervention.

"If the Ontario government can correct this looming outcome, it is incumbent on the Ontario government to do so," they wrote, urging the government to "take all legal means to prevent the OEB from rendering an unconstitutional and unjust decision."

"Our First Nations and the north have waited five long years for this transmission project," Collins said. "Enough is enough."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Australia-PNG Infrastructure Rollout delivers electricity and broadband expansion across PNG, backed by New Zealand, the US, Japan, and South Korea, enhancing telecom capacity, digital connectivity, and regional development ahead of the APEC summit.

Key Points

A multi-billion-dollar plan to expand power and broadband in PNG, covering 70% of users with allied support.

✅ Delivers internet to 70% of PNG households and communities

✅ Expands electricity grid, boosting reliability and access

✅ Backed by NZ, US, Japan, and S. Korea; complements APEC investments

Australia will lead a new multi-billion-dollar electricity and internet rollout in Papua New Guinea, with the PM rules out taxpayer-funded power plants stance underscoring its approach to energy policy.

The Australian newspaper reported New Zealand, the US, Japan, whose utilities' offshore wind deal in the UK signaled expanding energy interests, and South Korea are supporting the project, which will be PNG's largest ever development investment.

The project will deliver internet to 70 percent of PNG and improve access to power, even as clean energy investment in developing nations has slipped sharply, according to a recent report.

Both China and the US are also expected to announce new investments in the region at the APEC summit this week, and recent China-Cambodia nuclear energy cooperation underscores those energy ties.

Beijing will announce new mining and energy investments in PNG, echoing projects such as the Chinese-built electricity poles plant in South Sudan, and two Confucius Insitutes to be housed at PNG universities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Massachusetts Energy Code Updates align DOER regulations with BBRS standards, advancing Stretch Code and Specialized Code beyond the Base Energy Code to accelerate net-zero construction, electrification, and high-efficiency building performance across municipal opt-in communities.

Key Points

They are DOER-led changes to Base, Stretch, and Specialized Codes to drive net-zero, electrified, efficient buildings.

✅ Updates apply Base, Stretch, or opt-in Specialized Code.

✅ Targets net-zero by 2050 with electrification-first design.

✅ Municipalities choose code path via City Council or Town Meeting.

Massachusetts will soon see significant updates to the energy codes that govern the construction and alteration of buildings throughout the Commonwealth.

As required by the 2021 climate bill, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has recently finalized regulations updating the current Stretch Energy Code, previously promulgated by the state's Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), and establishing a new Specialized Code geared toward achieving net-zero building energy performance.

The final code has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy for review as required under state law, amid ongoing Connecticut market overhaul discussions that could influence regional dynamics.

Under the new regulations, each municipality must apply one of the following:

Base Energy Code - The current Base Energy Code is being updated by the BBRS as part of its routine updates to the full set of building codes. This base code is the default if a municipality has not opted in to an alternative energy code.

Stretch Code - The updated Stretch Code creates stricter guidelines on energy-efficiency for almost all new constructions and alterations in municipalities that have adopted the previous Stretch Code, paralleling 100% carbon-free target in Minnesota and elsewhere to support building decarbonization. The updated Stretch Code will automatically become the applicable code in any municipality that previously opted-in to the Stretch Code.

Specialized Code - The newly created Specialized Code includes additional requirements above and beyond the Stretch Code, designed to get to ensure that new construction is consistent with a net-zero economy by 2050, similar to Canada's clean electricity regulations that set a 2050 decarbonization pathway. Municipalities must opt-in to adopt the Specialized Code by vote of City Council or Town Meeting.

The new codes are much too detailed to summarize in a blog post. You can read more here. Without going into those details here, it is worth noting a few significant policy implications of the new regulations:

With roughly 90% of Massachusetts municipalities having already adopted the prior version of the Stretch Code, the Commonwealth will effectively soon have a new base code that, even if it does not mandate zero-energy buildings, is nonetheless very aggressive in pushing new construction to be as energy-efficient as possible, as jurisdictions such as Ontario clean electricity regulations continue to reshape the power mix.

Although some concerns have been raised about the cost of compliance, particularly in a period of high inflation, and amid solar demand charge debates in Massachusetts, our understanding is that many developers have indicated that they can work with the new regulations without significant adverse impacts.

Of course, the success of the new codes depends on the success of the Commonwealth's efforts to transition quickly to a zero-carbon electrical grid, supported by initiatives like the state's energy storage solicitation to bolster reliability. If the cost of doing so is higher than expected, there could well be public resistance. If new transmission doesn't get built out sufficiently quickly or other problems occur, such that the power is not available to electrify all new construction, that would be a much more significant problem - for many reasons!

In short, the new regulations unquestionably set the Commonwealth on a course to electrify new construction and squeeze carbon emissions out of new buildings. However, as with the rest of our climate goals, there are a lot of moving pieces, including proposals for a clean electricity standard shaping the power sector that are going to have to come together to make the zero-carbon economy a reality.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canadian Energy Infrastructure Tariffs are reshaping pipelines, deregulation, and energy independence, as U.S. trade tensions accelerate approvals for Alberta oil sands, Trans Mountain expansion, and CAPP proposals amid regulatory reform and market diversification.

Key Points

U.S. tariff threats drive approvals, infrastructure, and diversification to strengthen Canada energy security.

✅ Tariff risk boosts support for pipelines and export routes

✅ Faster project approvals and deregulation gain political backing

✅ Diversifying markets reduces reliance on U.S. buyers

In recent months, the Canadian energy sector has experienced a shift in public and political attitudes toward infrastructure projects, particularly those related to oil and gas production. This shift has been largely influenced by the threat of tariffs from the United States, as well as growing concerns about energy independence and U.S.-Canada trade tensions more broadly.

Scott Burrows, the CEO of Pembina Pipeline Corp., noted in a conference call that the potential for U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy imports has spurred a renewed sense of urgency and receptiveness toward energy infrastructure projects in Canada. With U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs Trump tariff threat on Canadian imports, particularly a 10% tariff on energy products, there is increasing recognition within Canada that these projects are essential for the country’s long-term economic and energy security.

While the direct impact of the tariffs is not immediate, industry leaders are optimistic about the long-term benefits of deregulation and faster project approvals, even as some see Biden as better for Canada’s energy sector overall. Burrows highlighted that while it will take time for the full effects to materialize, there are significant "tailwinds" in favor of faster energy infrastructure development. This includes the possibility of more streamlined regulatory processes and a shift toward more efficient project timelines, which could significantly benefit the Canadian energy sector.

This changing landscape is particularly important for Alberta’s oil production, which is one of the largest contributors to Canada’s energy output. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has responded to the growing tariff threat by releasing an “energy platform,” outlining recommendations for Ottawa to help mitigate the risks posed by the evolving trade situation. The platform includes calls for improved infrastructure, such as pipelines and transportation systems, and priorities like clean grids and batteries, to ensure that Canadian energy can reach global markets more effectively.

The tariff threat has also sparked a wider conversation about the need for Canada to strengthen its energy infrastructure and reduce its dependency on the U.S. for energy exports. With the potential for escalating trade tensions, there is a growing push for Canadian energy resources to be processed and utilized more domestically, though cutting Quebec’s energy exports during a tariff war. This has led to increased political support for projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which aims to connect Alberta’s oil sands to new markets in Asia via the west coast.

However, the energy sector’s push for deregulation and quicker approvals has raised concerns among environmental groups and Indigenous communities. Critics argue that fast-tracking energy projects could lead to inadequate environmental assessments and greater risks to local ecosystems. These concerns underscore the tension between economic development and environmental protection in the energy sector.

Despite these concerns, there is a clear consensus that Canada’s energy industry needs to evolve to meet the challenges posed by shifting trade dynamics, even as polls show support for energy and mineral tariffs in the current dispute. The proposed U.S. tariffs have made it increasingly clear that the country’s energy infrastructure needs significant investment and modernization to ensure that Canada can maintain its status as a reliable and competitive energy supplier on the global stage.

As the deadline for the tariff decision approaches, and as Ford threatens to cut U.S. electricity exports, Canada’s energy sector is bracing for the potential fallout, while also preparing to capitalize on any opportunities that may arise from the changing trade environment. The next few months will be critical in determining how Canadian policymakers, businesses, and environmental groups navigate the complex intersection of energy, trade, and regulatory reform.

While the threat of U.S. tariffs may be unsettling, it is also serving as a catalyst for much-needed changes in Canada’s energy policy. The push for faster approvals and deregulation may help address some of the immediate concerns facing the sector, but it will be crucial for the government to balance economic interests with environmental and social considerations as the country moves forward in its energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin energy consumption is driven by mining electricity demand, with TWh-scale power use, carbon footprint concerns, and Cambridge estimates. Rising prices incentivize more hardware; efficiency gains and renewables adoption shape sustainability outcomes.

Key Points

Bitcoin energy consumption is mining's electricity use, driven by price, device efficiency, and energy mix.

✅ Cambridge tool estimates ~121 TWh annual usage

✅ Rising BTC price incentivizes more mining hardware

✅ Efficiency, renewables, and costs shape footprint

"Mining" for the cryptocurrency is power-hungry, with power curtailments reported during heat waves, involving heavy computer calculations to verify transactions.

Cambridge researchers say it consumes around 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year - and is unlikely to fall unless the value of the currency slumps, even as Americans use less electricity overall.

Critics say electric-car firm Tesla's decision to invest heavily in Bitcoin undermines its environmental image.

The currency's value hit a record $48,000 (£34,820) this week. following Tesla's announcement that it had bought about $1.5bn bitcoin and planned to accept it as payment in future.

But the rising price offers even more incentive to Bitcoin miners to run more and more machines.

And as the price increases, so does the energy consumption, according to Michel Rauchs, researcher at The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, who co-created the online tool that generates these estimates.

“It is really by design that Bitcoin consumes that much electricity,” Mr Rauchs told BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “This is not something that will change in the future unless the Bitcoin price is going to significantly go down."

The online tool has ranked Bitcoin’s electricity consumption above Argentina (121 TWh), the Netherlands (108.8 TWh) and the United Arab Emirates (113.20 TWh) - and it is gradually creeping up on Norway (122.20 TWh).

The energy it uses could power all kettles used in the UK, where low-carbon generation stalled in 2019, for 27 years, it said.

However, it also suggests the amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the US alone could power the entire Bitcoin network for a year, and in Canada, B.C. power imports have helped meet demand.

Mining Bitcoin
In order to "mine" Bitcoin, computers - often specialised ones - are connected to the cryptocurrency network.

They have the job of verifying transactions made by people who send or receive Bitcoin.

This process involves solving puzzles, which, while not integral to verifying movements of the currency, provide a hurdle to ensure no-one fraudulently edits the global record of all transactions.

As a reward, miners occasionally receive small amounts of Bitcoin in what is often likened to a lottery.

To increase profits, people often connect large numbers of miners to the network - even entire warehouses full of them, as seen with a Medicine Hat bitcoin operation backed by an electricity deal.

That uses lots of electricity because the computers are more or less constantly working to complete the puzzles, prompting some utilities to consider pauses on new crypto loads in certain regions.

The University of Cambridge tool models the economic lifetime of the world's Bitcoin miners and assumes that all the Bitcoin mining machines worldwide are working with various efficiencies.

Using an average electricity price per kilowatt hour ($0.05) and the energy demands of the Bitcoin network, it is then possible to estimate how much electricity is being consumed at any one time, though in places like China's power sector data can be opaque.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News