Schneider Power announces CEO

UK Energy Switching Surge sees 600,000 customers change suppliers in October, driven by competition, the Energy Switch Guarantee, and better tariffs, with Electralink's DTN supporting customer switching and Ofgem oversight.

Key Points

A rise in UK customers switching electricity suppliers in October, driven by competition and the Energy Switch Guarantee.

✅ 600,000 switches recorded in October

✅ 32% moved to small and mid-tier suppliers

✅ Energy Switch Guarantee assures simple, safe transfers

More than 600,000 customers took steps to save on their energy bills this winter by switching electricity provider in October, as forecasts such as a 16% bill decrease in April offer further encouragement, the latest figures from Energy UK reveal.

A third (32 per cent) of those changing providers in October moved to small and mid-tier suppliers.

Regional markets have seen changes too, including Irish electricity price increases that highlight wider cost pressures.

With recent research showing that that nine in ten energy switchers were happy with the process of changing suppliers and with the reassurance provided by the Energy Switch Guarantee - a series of commitments ensuring switches are simple, speedy and safe - and amid MPs proposing price restrictions to protect consumers, more and more customers are now confident when looking to move.

Lawrence Slade, chief executive of Energy UK said: 'Switching continues to surge with over 600,000 customers changing supplier to find a better deal last month. Many more will have made savings by checking they are on the best deal with their current supplier. It only takes a few minutes to do this and with over 55 suppliers across the market, there's never been more competition or choice.'

Around 75 per cent of the market are signatories of the Guarantee. This includes: British Gas, Bulb Energy, E.ON, EDF Energy, First Utility, Flow Energy, npower, Octopus Energy, Pure Planet, Sainsbury's Energy, Scottish Power, So Energy and Tonik Energy.

The switching data is supplied by Electralink who provides a secure service to transfer data between the electricity market participants. The company operates the Data Transfer Network (DTN) which underpins customer switching, meter interoperability and other business processes critical to a competitive electricity market, where knowing where your electricity comes from can support informed choices.

The data referenced in these reports is since our collection of data only and is for electricity only.

These figures do not include internal electricity switching, and statistics on this from the larger suppliers and on Standard Variable Tariffs can be viewed on the Ofgem website, while ministers consider ending the gas-electricity price link to reduce bills.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New England Solar Interconnection Costs highlight distributed generation strains, transmission charges, distribution upgrades, and DAF fees as National Grid maps hosting capacity, driving queue delays and FERC disputes in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

Key Points

Rising upfront grid upgrade and DAF charges for distributed solar in RI and MA, including some transmission costs.

✅ Upfront grid upgrades shifted to project developers

✅ DAF and transmission charges increase per MW costs

✅ Queue delays tied to hosting capacity and cluster studies

Solar developers in Rhode Island and Massachusetts say soaring charges to interconnect with the electric grid are threatening the viability of projects. 

As more large-scale solar projects line up for connections, developers are being charged upfront for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades required, a long-common practice that they say is now becoming untenable amid debates over a new solar customer charge in Nova Scotia. 

“It is a huge issue that reflects an under-invested grid that is not ready for the volume of distributed generation that we’re seeing and that we need, particularly solar,” said Jeremy McDiarmid, vice president for policy and government affairs at the Northeast Clean Energy Council, a nonprofit business organization. 

Connecting solar and wind systems to the grid often requires upgrades to the distribution system to prevent problems, such as voltage fluctuations and reliability risks highlighted by Australian distributors in their networks. Costs can vary considerably from place to place, depending on the amount of distributed generation coming online and the level of capacity planning by regulators, said David Feldman, a senior financial analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

“Certainly the Northeast often has more distribution challenges than much of the rest of the country just because it’s more populous and often the infrastructure is older,” he said. “But it’s not unique to the Northeast — in the Midwest, for example, there’s a significant amount of wind projects in the queues and significant delays.”

In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where strong incentive programs are driving solar development, the level of solar coming online is “exposing the under-investment in the distribution system that is causing these massive costs that National Grid is assigning to particular projects or particular groups of projects,” McDiarmid said. “It is going to be a limiting factor for how much clean energy we can develop and bring online.”

Frank Epps, chief executive officer at Energy Development Partners, has been developing solar projects in Rhode Island since 2010. In that time, he said, interconnection charges on his projects have grown from about $80,000-$120,000 per megawatt to more than $400,000 per megawatt. He attributed the increase to a lack of investment in the distribution network by National Grid over the last decade.

He and other developers say the utility is now adding further to their costs by passing along not just the cost of improving the distribution system — the equivalent of the city street of the grid that brings power directly to customers — but also costs for modifying the transmission system — the interstate highway that moves bulk power over long distances to substations. 

Solar developers who are only requesting to hook into the distribution system, and not applying for transmission service, say they should not be charged for those additional upgrades under state interconnection rules unless they are properly authorized under the federal law that governs the transmission system. 

A Rhode Island solar and wind developer filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in February over transmission system improvement charges for its four proposed solar projects. Green Development said National Grid subsidiaries Narragansett Electric and New England Power Company want to charge the company more than $500,000 a year in operating and maintenance expenses assessed as so-called direct assignment facility charges. 

“This amount nearly doubles the interconnection costs associated with the projects,” which total 38.4 megawatts in North Smithfield, the company says in its complaint. “Crucially, these charges are linked to recovering costs associated with providing transmission service — even though no such transmission service is being provided to Green Development.”

But Ted Kresse, a spokesperson for National Grid, said the direct assignment facility, or DAF, construct has been in place for decades and has been applied to any customer affecting the need for transmission upgrades.

“It is the result of the high penetration and continued high volume of distributed generation interconnections that has recently prompted the need for transmission upgrades, and subsequently the pass-through of the associated DAF charges,” he said. 

Several complaints before the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission object to these DAF and other transmission charges.

One petition for dispute resolution concerns four solar projects totaling 40 MW being developed by Energy Development Partners in a former gravel pit in North Kingstown. Brown University has agreed to purchase the power. 

The developer signed interconnection service agreements with Narragansett Electric in 2019 requiring payment of $21.6 million for costs associated with connecting the projects at a new Wickford Junction substation. Last summer, Narragansett sought to replace those agreements with new ones that reclassified a portion of the costs as transmission-level costs, through New England Power, National Grid’s transmission subsidiary.

That shift would result in additional operational and maintenance charges of $835,000 per year for the estimated 35-year life of the projects, the complaint says.

“This came as a complete shock to us,” Epps said. “We’re not just paying for the maintenance of a new substation. We are paying a share of the total cost that the system owner has to own and operate the transmission system. So all of the sudden, it makes it even tougher for distributed energy resources to be viable.”

In its response to the petition, National Grid argues that the charges are justified because the solar projects will require transmission-level upgrades at the new substation. The company argues that the developer should be responsible for the costs rather than ratepayers, “who are already supporting renewable energy development through their electric rates.”

Seth Handy, one of the lawyers representing Green Development in the FERC complaint, argues that putting transmission system costs on distribution assets is unfair because the distributed resources are “actually reducing the need to move electricity long distances. We’ve been fighting these fights a long time over the underestimating of the value of distributed energy in reducing system costs.”

Handy is also representing the Episcopal Diocese of Rhode Island before the state Supreme Court in its appeal of an April 2020 public utilities commission order upholding similar charges for a proposed 2.2-megawatt solar project at the diocese’s conference center and camp in Glocester. 

Todd Bianco, principal policy associate at the utilities commission, said neither he nor the chairperson can comment on the pending dockets contesting these charges. But he noted that some of these issues are under discussion in another docket examining National Grid’s standards for connecting distributed generation. Among the proposals being considered is the appointment of an independent ombudsperson to resolve interconnection disputes. 

Separately, legislation pending before the Rhode Island General Assembly would remove responsibility for administering the interconnection of renewable energy from utilities, and put it under the authority of the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, a financing agency.

Handy, who recently testified in support of the bill, said he believes National Grid has too many conflicting interests to administer interconnecting charges in a timely, transparent and fair fashion, and pointed to utility moves such as changes to solar compensation in other states as examples. In particular, he noted the company’s interests in expanding natural gas infrastructure. 

“There are all kinds of economic interests that they have that conflict with our state policy to provide lower-cost renewable energy and more secure energy solutions,” Handy said.

In testimony submitted to the House Committee on Corporations opposing the legislation, National Grid said such powers are well beyond the purpose and scope of the infrastructure bank. And it cited figures showing Rhode Island is third in the country for the most installed solar per square mile (behind New Jersey and Massachusetts).

Nadav Enbar, program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit research organization for the utility industry, said interconnection delays and higher costs are becoming more common due to “the incredible uptake” in distributed renewable energy, particularly solar.

That’s impacting hosting capacity, the room available to connect all resources to a circuit without causing adverse harm to reliability and safety. 

“As hosting capacity is being reduced, it’s causing an increasing number of situations where utilities need to study their systems to guarantee interconnection without compromising their systems,” he said. “And that is the reason why you’re starting to see some delays, and it has translated into some greater costs because of the need for upgrades to infrastructure.”

The cost depends on the age or absence of infrastructure, projected load growth, the number of renewable energy projects in the queue, and other factors, he said. As utilities come under increasing pressure to meet state renewable goals, and as some states pilot incentives like a distributed energy rebate in Illinois to drive utility innovation, some (including National Grid) are beginning to provide hosting capacity maps that provide detailed information to developers and policymakers about the amount of distributed energy that can be accommodated at various locations on the grid, he said. 

In addition, the coming availability of high-tech “smart inverters” should help ease some of these problems because they provide the grid with more flexibility when it comes to connecting and communicating with distributed energy resources, Enbar said. 

In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Utilities has opened a docket to explore ways to better plan for and share the cost of upgrading distribution infrastructure to accommodate solar and other renewable energy sources as part of a grid overhaul for renewables nationwide. National Grid has been conducting “cluster studies” there that attempt to analyze the transmission impacts of a group of solar projects and the corresponding interconnection cost to each developer.

Kresse, of National Grid, said the company favors cost-sharing methodologies under consideration that would “provide a pathway to spread cost over the total enabled capacity from the upgrade, as opposed to spreading the cost over only those customers in the queue today.” 

Solar developers want regulators to take an even broader approach that factors in how the deployment of renewables and the resulting infrastructure upgrades benefit not just the interconnecting generator, but all customers. 

“Right now, if your project is the one that causes a multimillion-dollar upgrade, you are assigned that cost even though that upgrade is going to benefit a lot of other projects, as well as make the grid stronger,” said McDiarmid, of the clean energy council. “What we’re asking for is a way of allocating those costs among a variety of developers, as well as to the grid itself, meaning ratepayers. There’s a societal benefit to increasing the modernization of the grid, and improving the resilience of the grid.”

In the meantime, BlueHub Capital, a Boston-based solar developer focused on serving affordable housing developments, recently learned from National Grid that, as a part of one of the area studies, it will be required to pay $5.8 million in transmission and distribution upgrades to interconnect a 2-megawatt solar-plus-storage project that leverages cheaper batteries to enhance resilience, approved for a brownfield site in Gardner, Massachusetts. 

According to testimony submitted to the department, the sum is supposed to be paid within the next year, even though the project will have to wait to be interconnected until April 2027, when a new transmission line is completed. In addition, BlueHub will be responsible for DAF charges totaling $3.4 million over the 20-year life of the project. 

“We’re being asked to pay a fortune to provide solar that the state wants,” said DeWitt Jones, BlueHub’s president. “It’s so expensive that the upgrades are driving everyone out of the interconnection queue. The costs stay the same, but they fall on fewer projects. We need a process of grid design and modernization to guide this.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Build Back Better Act Energy Savings curb volatile fossil fuel heating bills by accelerating electrification and renewable electricity, insulating households from natural gas, propane, and oil price spikes while cutting emissions and lowering energy costs.

Key Points

BBBA policies expand clean power and electrification to curb volatility, lower bills, and cut emissions.

✅ Tax credits for renewables, EVs, and efficient all-electric homes

✅ Shields households from natural gas, propane, and heating oil spikes

✅ Cuts methane, lowers bills, and improves grid reliability and jobs

Experts are forecasting serious sticker shock from home heating bills this winter. Nearly 60 percent of United States’ households heat their homes with fossil fuels, including natural gas, propane, or heating oil, and these consumers are expected to spend much more this winter because of fuel price increases.

That could greatly burden many families and businesses already operating on thin margins. Yet homes that use electricity for heating and cooking are largely insulated from the pain of volatile fuel markets, and they’re facing dramatically lower price increases as a result.

Projections say cost increases for households could range anywhere from 22% to 94% more, depending on the fuel used for heating and the severity of the winter temperatures. But the added expenditures for the 41% of U.S. households using electricity for heating are much less stark—these consumers will see only a 6% price increase on average. The projected fossil fuel price spikes are largely due to increased demand, limited supply, declining fuel stores, and shifting investment priorities in the face of climate change.

The fossil fuel industry is already seizing this moment to use high prices to persuade policymakers to vote against clean energy policies, particularly the Build Back Better Act (BBBA). Spokespeople with ties to the fossil fuel industry and some consumer groups are trying to pin higher fuel prices on the proposed legislation even before it has passed, even as analyses show the energy crisis is not spurring a green revolution on its own, let alone begun impacting fuel markets. But the claim the BBBA would cost Americans and the economy is false.

The facts tell a different story. Adopting smart climate policies and accelerating the clean energy transition are precisely the solutions to counter this vicious cycle by ending our dependance on volatile fossil fuels. The BBBA will ensure reliable, affordable clean electricity for millions of Americans, in line with a clean electricity standard many experts advocate—a key strategy for avoiding future vulnerability. Unlike fossil fuels subject to the whims of a global marketplace, wind and sunshine are always free. So renewable-generated electricity comes with an ultra-low fixed price decades into the future.

By expanding clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits, creating new incentives for efficient all-electric homes, and dedicating new funding for state and local programs, the BBBA provides practical solutions that build on lessons from Biden's climate law to protect Americans from price shocks, save consumers money, and reduce emissions fueling dangerous climate change.

What’s really causing the gas price spikes?
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s winter 2021 energy price forecasts project that homes heated with natural gas, fuel oil, and propane will see average price increases of 30%, 43%, and 54%, respectively. Those who heat their homes with electricity, on the other hand, should expect a modest 6% increase. At the pump, drivers are seeing some of the highest gas prices in nearly a decade as the U.S. energy crisis ripples through electricity, gas, and EV markets today. And the U.S. is not alone. Countries around the globe are experiencing similar price jumps, including Britain's high winter energy costs this season.

A closer look confirms the cause of these high prices is not clean energy or climate policies—it’s fossil fuels themselves.  

First, the U.S. (and the world) are just now feeling the effects of the oil and gas industry’s reduced fuel production and spending due to the pandemic. COVID-19 brought the world’s economies to a screeching halt, and most countries have not returned to pre-COVID economic activity. During the past 20 months, the oil and gas industry curtailed its production to avoid oversupply as demand fell to all-time lows. Just as businesses were reopening, stored fuel was needed to meet high demand for cooling during 2021’s hottest summer on record, driving sky-high summer energy bills for many households. February’s Texas Big Freeze also disrupted gas distribution and production.

The world is moving again and demand for goods and services is rebounding to pre-pandemic levels. But even with higher energy demand, OPEC announced it would not inject more oil into the economy. Major oil companies have also held oil and gas spending flat in 2021, with their share of overall upstream spending at 25%, compared with nearly 40% in the mid-2010s. And as climate change threats loom in the financial world, investors are reducing their exposure to the risks of stranded assets, increasingly diversifying and divesting from fossil fuels. 

Second, despite strong and sustained growth for renewable energy, energy storage, and electric vehicles, the relatively slow pace to adopt fossil fuel alternatives at scale has left U.S. households and businesses tethered to an industry well-known for price volatility. Today, some oil drillers are using profits from higher gas prices to pay back debt and reward shareholders as demanded by investors, instead of increasing supply. Rising prices for a limited commodity in high demand is generating huge profits for many of the world’s largest companies at the expense of U.S. households.

Because 48% of homes use fossil gas for heating and another 10% heat with propane and fuel oil, more than half of U.S. households will feel the impact of rising prices on their home energy bills. One in four U.S. households continues to experience a high energy burden (meaning their energy expenses consume an inordinate amount of their income), including risks of pandemic power shut-offs that deepen energy insecurity, and many are still experiencing financial hardships exacerbated by the pandemic. Those with inefficient fossil-fueled appliances, homes, and cars will be hardest hit, and many families with fixed- and lower-incomes could be forced to choose between heat or other necessities.

We have the solutions—the BBBA will unlock their benefits for all households

Short-term band-aids may be enticing, but long-term policies are the only way out of this negative feedback loop. Clean energy and building electrification will prevent more costly disasters in the future, but they’re the very solutions the fossil fuel industry fights at every turn. All-electric homes and vehicles are a natural hedge against the price spikes we’re experiencing today since renewables are inherently devoid of fuel-related price fluctuations.

RMI analysis shows all-electric single-family homes in all regions of the country have lower energy bills than a comparable mixed fuel-homes (i.e., electricity and gas). Electric vehicles also save consumers money. Research from University of California, Berkeley and Energy Innovation found consumers could save a total of $2.7 trillion in 2050—or $1,000 per year, per household for the next 30 years—if we accelerate electric vehicle deployment in the coming decade.

The BBBA would help deliver these consumer savings by expanding and expediting clean energy, while ensuring equitable adoption among lower-income households and underserved communities. Extending and expanding clean energy tax credits; new incentives for electric vehicles (including used electric vehicles); and new incentives for energy efficient homes and all-electric appliances (and electrical upgrades) will reduce up-front costs and spur widespread adoption of all-electric homes, buildings, and cars.

A combination of grants, incentives, and programs will promote private sector investments in a decarbonized economy, while also funding and supporting state and local governments already leading the way. The BBBA also allocates dedicated funding and makes important modifications (such as higher rebate amounts and greater point-of-purchase availability) to ensure these technologies are available to low-income households, underserved urban and rural communities, tribes, frontline communities, and people living in multifamily housing.

Finally, the BBBA proposes to make oil and gas polluters pay for the harm they are causing to people’s health and the climate through a methane fee. This fee would cost companies less than 1% of their revenue, meaning the industry would retain over 99% of its profits. In return return we’d see substantial reductions of a powerful greenhouse gas and a healthier environment in communities living near fossil fuel production. These benefits also come with a stronger economy—Energy Innovation analysis shows the methane fee would create more than 70,000 jobs by 2050 and boost gross domestic product more than $250 billion from 2023 to 2050.

The facts speak for themselves. Gas prices are rising because of reasons totally unrelated to smart climate and clean energy policies, which research shows actually lower costs. For the first time in more than a decade, America has the opportunity to enact a comprehensive energy policy that will yield measurable savings to consumers and free us from oil and gas industry control over our wallets.

The BBBA will help the U.S. get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and achieve a stable energy future, ensuring that today’s price spikes will be a thing of the past. Proving, once and for all, that the solution to our fossil fuel woes is not more fossil fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EPA Telework Policy restricts remote work, balancing work-from-home guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic with flexible schedules, union contracts, OMB guidance, and federal workforce rules, impacting managers, SES staff, and non-bargaining employees nationwide.

Key Points

A directive limiting many EPA staff to two telework days weekly, with pandemic exceptions and flexible schedules.

✅ Limits telework to two days per week for many employees

✅ Allows flexible schedules, including maxiflex, during emergencies

✅ Aligns with OMB, OPM, CDC guidance; honors union agreements

EPA has moved forward on a new policy that would restrict telework even as agency leadership has encouraged staff to work from home during the coronavirus outbreak.

The new EPA order obtained by E&E News would require employees to report to the office at least three days every week.

"Full-time employees are expected to report to the official worksite and duty station a minimum of three (3) days per week," says the order, dated as approved on Feb. 27. It went into effect March 15 — that night, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler authorized telework for the entire agency due to the pandemic.

The order focuses on EPA employees' work schedules and gives them new flexibilities that could come in handy during a public health emergency like the COVID-19 virus, when parts of the power sector consider on-site staffing to ensure continuity.

It also stipulates a deep reduction in EPA employees' capability to work remotely, leaving them with two days of telework per week. An agency order on telework, issued in January 2016, said staff could telework full time.

"The EPA supports the use of telework," said that order. "Regular telework may range from one day per pay period up to full time."

An EPA spokeswoman said the new order doesn't change the agency's guidance to staff to work from home during the pandemic.

"The health and safety of our employees is our top priority, and that is why we have requested that all employees telework, even as residential electricity use increases with more people at home, until at least April 3. There is no provision in the work schedules policy, telework policy or collective bargaining agreement that limits this request," said the spokeswoman.

"While EPA did implement the national work schedule policy effective 3/15/2020, it was implemented in order to provide increased work schedule flexibilities for non-bargaining unit employees who were not previously afforded flexible schedules, including maxiflex," she added.

"The implementation of the policy does not currently impact telework opportunities for EPA employees, and EPA has strongly encouraged all staff to telework," she said.

Still, the new order has caused consternation among EPA employees.

One EPA manager described it as another move by the Trump administration to restrict telework across the government.

"Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, this policy seems particularly ill-timed and unwise. It doesn't even give the administration the chance to evaluate the situation once the COVID-19 pandemic passes," said the manager.

"I think this is a dramatic change in the flexibilities available to the EPA employees without any data to support such a drastic move," the manager said. "It has huge ramifications for employees, many of whom commute over an hour each way to the office, increasing air pollution in the process."

Another EPA staffer said, "I honestly think such an order, given current circumstances, would elicit little more than a scoff and a smirk."

The person added, "How tone-deaf and heavy-handed can one administration be?"

Inside EPA first reported on the new order. E&E News obtained the memo independently.

The recently issued policy applies only to non-bargaining-unit employees, including "full-time and part-time" agency staff as well as "supervisors and managers in the competitive, excepted, Senior Level, Scientific and Professional, and Senior Executive Service positions."

In addition, the order covers "Public Health Service Officers, Schedule C, Administratively Determined employees and non-EPA employees serving on Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignments to EPA."

Nevertheless, EPA employees covered under union contracts must adhere to those contracts if the policy runs counter to them.

"If provisions of this order conflict with the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, the provisions of the agreement must be applied," the order says.

EPA has taken a more restrictive approach with the agency's largest union, American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents about 7,500 EPA employees. EPA imposed a contract on the council's bargaining unit employees last July that limited them to one day of telework per week, among other changes that triggered union protests.

EPA and AFGE have since relaunched contract negotiations, and how to handle telework is one of the issues under discussion. Both sides committed to complete those bargaining talks by April 15 and work with the Federal Service Impasses Panel if needed (Greenwire, Feb. 27).

Both sides of the telework debate
EPA's new order has been under consideration for some time.

E&E News obtained a draft version last year. The agency had circulated it for comment in July, noting the proposal "limits the number of days an employee may telework per week," among other changes (Greenwire, Sept. 12, 2019).

EPA, like other federal agencies under the Trump administration, has sought to reduce employees' telework. That effort, though, has run into the headwinds of a global pandemic, with a U.S. grid warning highlighting broader risks, leading agency leaders to reverse course and now encourage staff to work remotely in order to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Wheeler in an email last week told staff that he authorized telework for employees across the country. Federal worker unions had sought the opportunity for remote work on behalf of EPA employees, and the agency had already relaxed telework policies at various offices the prior week where the coronavirus had begun to take hold.

The EPA spokeswoman said the agency moved toward telework after guidance from other agencies.

"Consistent with [Office of Management and Budget], [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and [Office of Personnel Management] guidance, along with state and local directives, we have taken swift action in regions and at headquarters to implement telework for all employees. We continue to tell all employees to telework," said the spokeswoman.

Wheeler said in a later video message that his expectation was most EPA employees were working from home.

"I understand that this is a difficult and scary time for all of us," said the EPA administrator.

The coronavirus has become a real challenge for EPA, and utilities like BC Hydro Site C updates illustrate broader operational adjustments.

Agency staff have been exposed to the virus while some have tested positive, and nuclear plant workers have raised similar concerns, according to internal emails. That has led to employees self-quarantining while their colleagues worry they may next fall ill (Greenwire, March 20).

One employee said that since EPA's operations have been maintained with staff working from home, even as household electricity bills rise for many, it's harder for the Trump administration to justify restricting remote work.

"With the current climate, I think employees have shown we can keep the agency going with nearly 95% teleworking full time. It makes their argument hard to justify in light of things," said the EPA employee.

The Trump administration overall has pushed for more remote work by the federal workforce in the battle with the COVID-19 virus. The Office of Management and Budget issued guidance to agencies last week "to minimize face-to-face interactions" and "maximize telework across the nation."

Lawmakers have also pushed to expand telework for federal workers due to the virus.

Democratic senators sent a letter last week urging President Trump to issue an executive order directing agencies to use telework.

In addition, Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) introduced legislation that would allow federal employees to telework full time during the pandemic.

Some worry EPA's new order could further sour morale at the agency after the pandemic passes, as other utilities consider measures like unpaid days off to trim costs. Employees may leave if they can't work from home more.

"People will quit EPA over something like this. Maybe that's the goal," said the EPA manager.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

US Control of Ukraine Nuclear Plants sparks debate over ZNPP, Zaporizhzhia, sovereignty, safety, ownership, and international cooperation, as Washington touts utility expertise, investment, and modernization to protect critical energy infrastructure amid conflict.

Key Points

US management proposal for Ukraine's nuclear assets, notably ZNPP, balancing sovereignty, safety, and investment.

✅ Ukraine retains ownership; any transfer requires parliament approval.

✅ ZNPP safety risks persist amid occupation near active conflict.

✅ International reactions split: sovereignty vs. cooperation and investment.

In a recent phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed that the United States take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which has been under Russian occupation since early in the war and where Russia is reportedly building power lines to reactivate the plant amid ongoing tensions. Trump suggested that American ownership of these plants could be the best protection for their infrastructure, a proposal that has sparked controversy in policy circles, and that the U.S. could assist in running them with its electricity and utility expertise.

Ukrainian Response

President Zelenskyy promptly addressed Trump's proposal, stating that while the conversation focused on the ZNPP, the issue of ownership was not discussed. He emphasized that all of Ukraine's nuclear power plants belong to the Ukrainian people and that any transfer of ownership would require parliamentary approval . Zelenskyy clarified that while the U.S. could invest in and help modernize the ZNPP, ownership would remain with Ukraine.

Security Concerns

The ZNPP, Europe's largest nuclear facility, has been non-operational since its occupation by Russian forces in 2022. The plant's location near active conflict zones raises significant safety risks that the IAEA has warned of in connection with attacks on Ukraine's power grids, and its future remains uncertain. Ukrainian officials have expressed concerns about potential Russian provocations, such as explosions, especially after UN inspectors reported mines at the Zaporizhzhia plant near key facilities, if and when Ukraine attempts to regain control of the plant.

International Reactions

The proposal has elicited mixed reactions both within Ukraine and internationally. Some Ukrainian officials view it as an opportunistic move by the U.S. to gain control over critical infrastructure, while others see it as a potential avenue for modernization and investment, alongside expanding wind power that is harder to destroy in wartime. The international community remains divided on the issue, with some supporting Ukraine's sovereignty over its nuclear assets and others advocating for a possible agreement on power plant attacks to ensure the plant's safety and future operation.

President Trump's proposal to have the U.S. take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has sparked significant controversy. While the U.S. offers expertise and investment, Ukraine maintains that ownership of its nuclear assets is a matter of national sovereignty, even as it has resumed electricity exports to bolster its economy. The situation underscores the complex interplay between security, sovereignty, and international cooperation in conflict zones.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News