Mexican president's contentious electricity overhaul defeated in Congress

DOE Environmental Management Funding Boost seeks $7.25B to accelerate nuclear cleanup, upgrade Savannah River Site infrastructure, create jobs, and support small businesses, echoing ARRA 2009 results and expediting DOE EM waste remediation nationwide.

Key Points

A proposed $7.25B stimulus for DOE's EM to accelerate nuclear cleanup, modernize infrastructure, and create jobs.

✅ $7.25B one-time stimulus for DOE EM cleanup and infrastructure.

✅ Targets Savannah River Site; supports jobs and small businesses.

✅ Builds on ARRA 2009; accelerates nuclear waste remediation.

A bloc of local governments and nuclear industry, nuclear innovation efforts, labor and community groups are pressing Congress to provide a one-time multibillion-dollar boost to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management, the remediation-focused Savannah River Site landlord.

The organizations and officials -- including Citizens For Nuclear Technology Awareness Executive Director Jim Marra and Savannah River Site Community Reuse Organization President and CEO Rick McLeod -- sent a letter Friday to U.S. House and Senate leadership "strongly" supporting a $7.25 billion funding injection, even as ACORE challenges coal and nuclear subsidies in separate regulatory proceedings, arguing it "will help reignite the national economy," help revive small businesses and create thousands of new jobs despite the novel coronavirus crisis.

More than 30 million Americans have filed unemployment claims in the past two months, with additional clean energy job losses reported, too. Hundreds of thousands of claims have been filed in South Carolina since mid-March, compounding issues like unpaid utility bills in neighboring states.

The requested money could, too, speed Environmental Management's nuclear waste cleanup missions and be used to fix ailing infrastructure and strengthen energy security for rural communities nationwide -- some of which dates back to the Cold War -- at sites across the country. That's a "rare" opportunity, reads the letter, which prominently features the Energy Communities Alliance logo and its chairman's signature.

Similar funding programs, like what was done with the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and recent clean energy funding initiatives, have been successful.

At the time, amid a staggering economic downturn nationwide, Environmental Management contractors "hired over 20,000 new workers," putting them "to work to reduce the overall cleanup complex footprint by 688 square miles while strengthening local economies," the Friday letter reads.

The Energy Department's cleanup office estimates the $6 billion investment years ago reduced its environmental liability by $13 billion, according to a 2012 report.

Such a leap forward, the coalition believes, is repeatable, a view reflected in current plans to revitalize coal communities with clean energy projects across the country.

"We are confident that DOE can successfully manage increased funding and leverage it for future economic development as it has in the past," the letter states. It continues: "We take pride in working together to support jobs and development of infrastructure and work that make our country stronger and assists us to recover from the impacts of COVID-19."

As of Monday afternoon, 8,942 cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, have been logged in South Carolina. Aiken County is home to 155 of those cases.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

We Energies rate increase driven by nuclear energy costs at Point Beach, Wisconsin PSC filings, and rising utility rates, affecting electricity prices for residential, commercial, and industrial customers while supporting WEC carbon reduction goals.

Key Points

A 2021 utility rate hike to recover Point Beach nuclear costs, modestly raising Wisconsin electricity bills.

✅ Residential bills rise about $0.73 per month

✅ Driven by $55.82/MWh Point Beach contract price

✅ PSC review and consumer advocates assessing alternatives

Wisconsin's largest utility company is again asking regulators to raise rates to pay for the rising cost of nuclear energy.

We Energies says it needs to collect an additional $26.5 million next year, an increase of about 3.4%.

For residential customers, that would translate to about 73 cents more per month, or an increase of about 0.7%, while some nearby states face steeper winter rate hikes according to regulators. Commercial and industrial customers would see an increase of 1% to 1.5%, according to documents filed with the Public Service Commission.

If approved, it would be the second rate increase in as many years for about 1.1 million We Energies customers, who saw a roughly 0.7% increase in 2020 after four years of no change, while Manitoba Hydro rate increase has been scaled back for next year, highlighting regional contrasts.

We Energies' sister utility, Wisconsin Public Service Corp., has requested a 0.13% increase, which would add about 8 cents to the average monthly residential bill, which went up 1.6% this year.

We Energies said a rate increase is needed to cover the cost of electricity purchased from the Point Beach nuclear power plant, which according to filings with the Securities Exchange Commission will be $55.82 per megawatt-hour next year.

So far this year, the average wholesale price of electricity in the Midwestern market was a little more than $25.50 per megawatt-hour, and recent capacity market payouts on the largest U.S. grid have fallen sharply, reflecting broader market conditions.

Owned and operated by NextEra Energy Resources, the 1,200-megawatt Point Beach Nuclear Plant is Wisconsin's last operational reactor. We Energies sold the plant for $924 million in 2007 and entered into a contract to purchase its output for the next two decades.

Brendan Conway, a spokesman for WEC Energy Group, said customers have benefited from the sale of the plant, which will supply more than a third of We Energies' demand and is a key component in WEC's strategy to cut 80% of its carbon emissions by 2050, amid broader electrification trends nationwide.

"Without the Point Beach plant, carbon emissions in Wisconsin would be significantly higher," Conway said.

As part of negotiations on its last rate case, WEC agreed to work with consumer advocates and the PSC to review alternatives to the contracted price increases, which were structured to begin rising steeply in 2018.

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the contract will be an issue for We Energies customers into the next decade

"It's a significant source (of energy) for the entire state," Content said. "But nuclear is not cheap."

WEC filed the rate requests Monday, one week after the withdrawing similar applications. Conway said the largely unchanged filings had "undergone additional review by senior management."

WEC last week raised its second quarter profit forecast to 67 to 69 cents per share, up from the previous range of 58 to 62 cents per share.

The company credited better than expected sales in April and May along with operational cost savings and higher authorized profit margin for American Transmission Company, of which WEC is the majority owner.

Wisconsin's other investor-owned utilities have reported lower than expected fuel costs for 2020 and 2021, even as emergency fuel stock programs in New England are expected to cost millions this year.

Alliant Energy has proposed using about $31 million in fuel savings to help freeze rates in 2021, aligning with its carbon-neutral electricity plans as it rolls out long-term strategy, while Xcel Energy is proposing to lower its rates by 0.8% next year and refund its customers about $9.7 million in fuel costs for this year.

Madison Gas and Electric is negotiating a two-year rate structure with consumer groups who are optimistic that fuel savings can help prevent or offset rate increases, though some utilities are exploring higher minimum charges for low-usage customers to recover fixed costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Waste-to-Graphene uses flash joule heating to convert carbon-rich trash into turbostratic graphene for composites, asphalt, concrete, and flexible electronics, delivering scalable, low-cost, high-quality material from food scraps, plastics, and tires with minimal processing.

Key Points

A flash heating method converting waste carbon into turbostratic graphene for scalable, low-cost industrial uses.

✅ Converts food scraps, plastics, and tires into graphene

✅ Produces turbostratic flakes that disperse well in composites

✅ Scalable, low-cost process via flash joule heating

Science doesn’t usually take after fairy tales. But Rumpelstiltskin, the magical imp who spun straw into gold, would be impressed with the latest chemical wizardry. Researchers at Rice University report today in Nature that they can zap virtually any source of solid carbon, from food scraps to old car tires, and turn it into graphene—sheets of carbon atoms prized for applications ranging from high-strength plastic to flexible electronics, and debates over 5G electricity use continue to evolve. Current techniques yield tiny quantities of picture-perfect graphene or up to tons of less prized graphene chunks; the new method already produces grams per day of near-pristine graphene in the lab, and researchers are now scaling it up to kilograms per day.

“This work is pioneering from a scientific and practical standpoint” as it promises to make graphene cheap enough to use to strengthen asphalt or paint, says Ray Baughman, a chemist at the University of Texas, Dallas. “I wish I had thought of it.” The researchers have already founded a new startup company, Universal Matter, to commercialize their waste-to-graphene process, while others are digitizing the electrical system to modernize infrastructure.

With atom-thin sheets of carbon atoms arranged like chicken wire, graphene is stronger than steel, conducts electricity and heat better than copper, and can serve as an impermeable barrier preventing metals from rusting, while advances such as superconducting cables aim to cut grid losses. But since its 2004 discovery, high-quality graphene—either single sheets or just a few stacked layers—has remained expensive to make and purify on an industrial scale. That’s not a problem for making diminutive devices such as high-speed transistors and efficient light-emitting diodes. But current techniques, which make graphene by depositing it from a vapor, are too costly for many high-volume applications. And higher throughput approaches, such as peeling graphene from chunks of the mineral graphite, produce flecks composed of up to 50 graphene layers that are not ideal for most applications.

Graphene comes in many forms. Single sheets, which are ideal for electronics and optics, can be grown using a method called chemical vapor deposition. But it produces only tiny amounts. For large volumes, companies commonly use a technique called liquid exfoliation. They start with chunks of graphite, which is just myriad stacked graphene layers. Then they use acids and solvents, as well as mechanical grinding, to shear off flakes. This approach typically produces tiny platelets each made up of 20 to 50 layers of graphene.

In 2014, James Tour, a chemist at Rice, and his colleagues found they could make a pure form of graphene—each piece just a few layers thick—by zapping a form of amorphous carbon called carbon black with a laser. Brief pulses heated the carbon to more than 3000 kelvins, snapping the bonds between carbon atoms; for comparison, researchers have also generated electricity from falling snow using triboelectric effects. As the cloud of carbon cooled, it coalesced into the most stable structure possible, graphene. But the approach still produced only tiny qualities and required a lot of energy.

Two years ago, Luong Xuan Duy, one of Tour’s graduate students, read that other researchers had created metal nanoparticles by zapping a material with electricity, creating the same brief blast of heat behind the success of the laser graphene approach. “I wondered if I could use that to heat a carbon source and produce graphene,” Duy says. So, he put a dash of carbon black in a clear glass vial and zapped it with 400 volts, similar in spirit to electrical weed zapping approaches in agriculture, for about 200 milliseconds. Initially he got junk. But after a bit of tweaking, he managed to create a bright yellowish white flash, indicating the temperature inside the vial was reaching about 3000 kelvins. Chemical tests revealed he had produced graphene.

It turned out to be a type of graphene that is ideal for bulk uses. As the carbon atoms condense to form graphene, they don’t have time to stack in a regular pattern, as they do in graphite. The result is a material known as turbostatic graphene, with graphene layers jumbled at all angles atop one another. “That’s a good thing,” Duy says. When added to water or other solvents, turbostatic graphene remains suspended instead of clumping up, allowing each fleck of the material to interact with whatever composite it’s added to.

“This will make it a very good material for applications,” says Monica Craciun, a materials physicist at the University of Exeter. In 2018, she and her colleagues reported that adding graphene to concrete more than doubled its compressive strength. Tour’s team saw much the same result. When they added just 0.05% by weight of their flash-produced graphene to concrete, the compressive strength rose 25%; graphene added to polydimethylsiloxane, a common plastic, boosted its strength by 250%.

As digital control spreads across energy networks, research to counter ransomware-driven blackouts is increasingly important for grid resilience.

Those results could reignite efforts to use graphene in a wide range of composites. Researchers in Italy reported recently that adding graphene to asphalt dramatically reduces its tendency to fracture and more than doubles its life span. Last year, Iterchimica, an Italian company, began to test a 250-meter stretch of road in Milan paved with graphene-spiked asphalt. Tests elsewhere have shown that adding graphene to paint dramatically improves corrosion resistance.

These applications would require high-quality graphene by the ton. Fortunately, the starting point for flash graphene could hardly be cheaper or more abundant: Virtually any organic matter, including coffee grounds, food scraps, old tires, and plastic bottles, can be vaporized to make the material. “We’re turning garbage into graphene,” Duy says.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Ford Oakville EV investment secures government funding, Unifor deal, and plant retooling, channeling $500 million plus $1.98 billion for Canadian electric vehicle manufacturing, Windsor engine contracts, and 2025 production, strengthening Ontario's auto industry.

Key Points

Government and Ford will retool Oakville for EVs, creating jobs under a Unifor deal and Windsor engine work.

✅ $500M government funding for plant retooling

✅ Ford commits $1.98B; five new EVs by 2025

✅ Unifor deal adds Windsor engine work, jobs

The federal government and Ontario have pledged to spend up to $500 million to make the Ford plant in Oakville, Ont., able to build electric vehicles, aligning with efforts to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot underway.

The future of the plant has been a key question for Canada's automotive industry, as moves like GM's Ontario EV deal point to broader changes, ever since the Unifor union started negotiating with the automaker for a new three-year pact to cover the company's Canadian workforce.

The two sides struck a deal a few hours after a midnight strike deadline on Tuesday morning, one that will see the company commit $1.98 billion to build five new electric vehicles and an engine contract that could yield new EV jobs in Windsor, Ont.

Ford has previously committed to spending $11 billion US to develop and manufacture electric vehicles, but so far all of that money was earmarked for Ford plants in Mexico and the company's home state of Michigan.

"With Oakville gaining such a substantial portion of Ford's planned investment, the assembly plant and its workers are better set for employment going forward," said Sam Fiorani, vice-president of global forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions.

Unifor's 'unique' Ford deal includes 5 new electric vehicles in Oakville, engine for Windsor plants
Currently, the plant builds the Ford Edge and Lincoln Nautilus, but concerns over the plant's future emerged earlier this year when a report suggested Ford was contemplating scrapping the Edge altogether. The new vehicles will come as welcome news for the plant, even as Fiorani says he worries that demand for the electric vehicles (EV) has so far not lived up to the hype.

"The EV market is coming, and Ford looks to be preparing for it. However, the demand is just not growing in line with the proposed investment from all vehicle manufacturers," he said.

Plant needs upgrade first
And the plant can't simply flip a switch and start building an entirely new type of vehicle. It will require a major retooling, and that will require time — and cash — to happen, which is where government cash comes in, as seen with a Niagara Region battery plant supporting the EV supply chain.

As first reported by the Toronto Star, the two branches of government have committed to spent up to $500 million combined to upgrade the plant so that it can build electric vehicles.

"The retooling will begin in 2024 with vehicles rolling off the line in 2025," Unifor president Jerry Dias said. "So we know this is a decades-long commitment."

It's not clear what portion of the cash will come from what branch of government, but CBC News has previously reported that Wednesday's throne speech is expected to contain a number of policies aimed at beefing up Canada's electric vehicle industry, as EV assembly deals are putting Canada in the race, both on the consumer side and for businesses that build them.

Ontario's minister of economic development and trade welcomed the news of a tentative deal on Tuesday and confirmed that Queen's Park legislators stand ready to do their part, as shown by Honda's Ontario battery investment moves in the province.

"Our government will always work with our federal colleagues, workers and the auto sector to ensure the right conditions are in place for the industry to remain stable today and seize the new opportunities of tomorrow," a spokesperson for Vic Fedeli told CBC News in an emailed statement Tuesday.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Rising Electricity Prices are driven by inflation, climate change, and the clean energy transition, affecting energy bills, grid resilience, and supply. Renewables, storage, and infrastructure upgrades shape costs, volatility, and long-term sustainability.

Key Points

Rising electricity prices stem from inflation, climate risk, and costs of integrating clean energy and storage into modern grids.

✅ Inflation raises fuel, materials, and labor costs for utilities

✅ Extreme weather damages infrastructure and strains peak demand

✅ Clean energy rollout needs storage, backup, and grid upgrades

In recent months, consumers have been grappling with a concerning trend: rising electricity prices across the country. This increase is not merely a fluctuation but a complex issue shaped by a confluence of factors including inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the current energy landscape and preparing for its future.

Inflation and Its Impact on Energy Costs

Inflation, the economic phenomenon of rising prices across various sectors, has significantly impacted the cost of living, including electricity and natural gas prices for households. As the price of goods and services increases, so too does the cost of producing and delivering electricity. Energy production relies heavily on raw materials, such as metals and fuels, whose prices have surged in recent years. For instance, the costs associated with mining, transporting, and refining these materials have risen, thereby increasing the operational expenses for power plants.

Moreover, inflation affects labor costs, as wages often need to keep pace with the rising cost of living. As utility companies face higher expenses for both materials and labor, these costs are inevitably passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills.

Climate Change and Energy Supply Disruptions

Climate change also plays a significant role in driving up electricity prices. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, and floods, have become more frequent and severe due to climate change. These events disrupt energy production and distribution by damaging infrastructure, impeding transportation, and affecting the availability of resources.

For example, hurricanes can knock out power plants and damage transmission lines, leading to shortages and higher costs. During periods of extreme summer heat across many regions, heatwaves can strain the power grid as increased demand for air conditioning pushes the system to its limits. Such disruptions not only lead to higher immediate costs but also necessitate costly repairs and infrastructure upgrades.

Additionally, the increasing frequency of natural disasters forces utilities to invest in more resilient infrastructure, as many utilities spend more on delivery to harden grids and reduce outages, which adds to overall costs. These investments, while necessary for long-term reliability, contribute to short-term price increases for consumers.

The Transition to Clean Energy

The shift towards clean energy is another pivotal factor influencing electricity prices. While renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro power are crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change, their integration into the existing grid presents challenges.

Renewable energy infrastructure requires substantial initial investment. The construction of wind farms, solar panels, and the associated grid improvements involve significant capital expenditure. These upfront costs are often reflected in electricity prices. Moreover, renewable energy sources can be intermittent, meaning they do not always produce electricity at times of high demand. This intermittency necessitates the development of energy storage solutions and backup systems, which further adds to the costs.

Utilities are also transitioning from fossil fuel-based energy production to cleaner alternatives, a process that involves both technological and operational shifts and intersects with the broader energy crisis impacts on electricity, gas, and EVs nationwide. These changes can temporarily increase costs as utilities phase out old systems and implement new ones. While the long-term benefits of cleaner energy include environmental sustainability and potentially lower operating costs, the transition period can be financially burdensome for consumers.

The Path Forward

Addressing rising electricity prices requires a multifaceted approach. Policymakers must balance the need for immediate relief, as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills, with the long-term goals of sustainability and resilience. Investments in energy efficiency can help reduce overall demand and ease pressure on the grid. Expanding and modernizing energy infrastructure to accommodate renewable sources can also mitigate price volatility.

Additionally, efforts to mitigate climate change through improved resilience and adaptive measures can reduce the frequency and impact of extreme weather events, thereby stabilizing energy costs.

Consumer education is vital in this process. Understanding the factors driving electricity prices can empower individuals to make informed decisions about energy consumption and conservation. Furthermore, exploring energy-efficient appliances and practices can help manage costs in the face of rising prices.

In summary, the rising cost of electricity is a multifaceted issue influenced by inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy, and recent developments show Germany's rising energy costs in the coming year. While these factors pose significant challenges, they also offer opportunities for innovation and improvement in how we produce, distribute, and consume energy. By addressing these issues with a balanced approach, it is possible to navigate the complexities of rising electricity prices while working towards a more sustainable and resilient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News