Citizens and conservation advocates across Montana commended Missoula leaders for their decision to back out of a deal with Electric City Power, a Great Falls nonprofit with plans to build a coal-fired plant.
“I was very pleased to see Missoula local government show such leadership so quickly on such an important issue,” said Anne Hedges of the Montana Environmental Information Center.
The Missoula City Council folded to public pressure and reversed its support for a plan to buy electricity from Great Falls. Supporting Mayor John Engen's request to change course, several council members agreed the public had raised too many questions that couldn't be answered before an Oct. 1 deadline imposed by a new law.
Citing great financial risk and definite environmental harm, many community members and legislators blasted Missoula council members for authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement with a company backing coal. The MEIC's Hedges was among the advocates who asked the city to back out of the deal, seen across the state by environmental advocates as the “un-greening” of Missoula.
Hedges and other advocates said they cast no blame on city officials, who didn't have all the information they needed to make a good decision early on. They also commended city officials for showing a willingness to do an about-face.
“I'm just really pleased that when they were presented with an abundance of information, they were willing to look at it and reconsider what they had done. I think that really shows moral courage,” Hedges said.
Some council members said they weren't convinced they should abandon coal, though they agreed the deal with Electric City Power offered too many unknowns. Citizens, though, said they were pleased to see Missoula head in a direction that wouldn't increase the valley's carbon footprint and contribute to global warming.
“We have so many untapped opportunities in Montana to produce electricity from renewable sources, like wind and solar, and with good leadership from D.C. and Helena, that's exactly what we should be doing,” wrote a policy advocate and concerned citizen, Derek Goldman, in an e-mail.
Goldman was one of the people who told council members a week ago to think twice before signing the contract. He and others did not want to see the Garden City behind a coal-fired power plant.
City officials initially leapt at the offer because it looked to considerably lower Missoula's power bill, which has jumped since deregulation. Opponents argued the deal was fraught with financial risk, but the contract was expected to save $70,000 a year in electricity charges - at least in the short term.
After public outcry, Engen asked council members to change direction. He maintains the city's goals are valid, however, and has asked people who opposed this deal to help him find ways to buy green and less expensive power.
Matt Leow, executive director for the Montana Public Interest Research Group, or MontPIRG, said conservation would go a long way toward cutting down the cost of the power bill.
“Efficiency and conservation can yield tremendous savings with minimal investments,” said Leow, who was writing a letter thanking the mayor and council members for their decision.
Hedges said it's the city's role to provide a forum to explore the issue, which has engaged people across Montana.
Energy is a perennial topic during state legislative sessions, and a new law requires customers the size of Missoula to choose their electricity supplier by Oct. 1 - and generally stick with that provider.
With the impending deadline, Great Falls representatives have been asking groups to sign up with Electricity City Power. The nonprofit will be part owner of the power plant being built outside the city and expected to be operational by 2012.
Helena earlier turned down the offer, and Bozeman declined to even hear Great Falls' presentation. Missoula signed on in early August and then reversed direction.
Great Falls city manager John Lawton said Missoula isn't a large enough electricity consumer to make a big dent in the company's portfolio. The offer was a courtesy on the part of Great Falls, but cities like Missoula were never the company's main targets.
“It would be a nice load to have, but it is not a large load in terms of our overall customer base,” Lawton said.
A series of small refusals such as Missoula's could make a difference in the long run, though, Hedges said. If Electric City Power doesn't sell enough megawatts, financing the coal-fired plant will be more difficult, she said.
“It's hard to get other investors and other customers. They need that and their clock is ticking,” she said.
Though the pressing matter elicited a public outcry, several council members said many letters they received had an offensive tone. They asked public interest groups to remain respectful in their correspondence in the future or even pick up the telephone.
“It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth,” Ward 1 Councilwoman Heidi Kendall said of some of the letters she received.
Ward 5 Councilman Jack Reidy voiced an audible abstention from the vote, saying he didn't know enough to make an educated decision.
Extreme Heat and Rising Electricity Bills amplify energy costs as climate change drives air conditioning demand, stressing the power grid and energy affordability, with low income households facing outsized burdens during prolonged heat waves.
Key Points
Heat waves from climate change raise AC demand, driving up electricity costs and straining energy affordability.
✅ More AC use spikes electricity demand during heat waves
✅ Low income households face higher energy burden
✅ Grid reliability risks rise with peak cooling loads
Extreme heat waves are not only straining public health systems but also having a significant impact on household finances, particularly through rising electricity bills. According to a recent AP-NORC poll, a growing number of Americans are feeling the financial pinch as soaring temperatures drive up the cost of cooling their homes. This development underscores the broader implications of climate change and its effects on everyday life.
The AP-NORC poll highlights that a majority of Americans are experiencing increased electricity costs as a direct result of extreme heat. As temperatures climb, so does the demand for air conditioning and other cooling systems. This increased energy consumption is contributing to higher utility bills, which can put additional strain on household budgets.
Extreme heat waves have become more frequent and intense due to climate change, which has led to a greater reliance on air conditioning to maintain comfortable indoor environments. Air conditioners and fans work harder during heat waves, and wasteful air conditioning can add around $200 to summer bills, consuming more electricity and consequently driving up energy bills. For many households, particularly those with lower incomes, these increased costs can be a significant burden.
The poll reveals that the impact of rising electricity bills is widespread, affecting a diverse range of Americans. Households across different income levels and geographic regions are feeling the heat, though the extent of the financial strain can vary. Lower-income households are particularly vulnerable, as they often have less flexibility in their budgets to absorb higher utility costs. For these families, the choice between cooling their homes and other essential expenses can be a difficult one.
In addition to financial strain, the poll highlights concerns about energy affordability and access. As electricity bills rise, some Americans may face challenges in paying their bills, leading to potential utility shut-offs or the need to make difficult choices between cooling and other necessities. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that many utility companies do not offer sufficient assistance or relief programs to help low-income households manage their energy costs.
The increasing frequency of extreme heat events and the resulting spike in electricity consumption also have broader implications for the energy infrastructure. Higher demand for electricity can strain power grids, as seen when California narrowly avoided blackouts during extreme heat, potentially leading to outages or reduced reliability. Utilities and energy providers may need to invest in infrastructure upgrades and maintenance to ensure that the grid can handle the increased load during heat waves.
Climate change is a key driver of the rising temperatures that contribute to higher electricity bills. As global temperatures continue to rise, extreme heat events are expected to become more common and severe, and experts warn the US electric grid was not designed to withstand these impacts. This trend underscores the need for comprehensive strategies to address both the causes and consequences of climate change. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, and invest in renewable energy sources are critical components of a broader climate action plan.
Energy efficiency measures can play a significant role in mitigating the impact of extreme heat on electricity bills. Upgrading to more efficient cooling systems, improving home insulation, and adopting smart thermostats can help reduce energy consumption and lower utility costs. Additionally, utility companies and government programs can offer incentives and rebates, including ways to tap new funding that help encourage energy-saving practices and support households in managing their energy use.
The poll also suggests that there is a growing awareness among Americans about the connection between climate change and rising energy costs. Many people are becoming more informed about the ways in which extreme weather events and rising temperatures impact their daily lives. This increased awareness can drive demand for policy changes and support for initiatives aimed at addressing climate change and improving energy efficiency, with many willing to contribute income to climate efforts, about the connection between climate change and rising energy costs.
In response to the rising costs and the impact of extreme heat, there are calls for policy interventions and support programs to help manage energy affordability. Proposals include expanding assistance programs for low-income households, investing in infrastructure improvements, and promoting energy efficiency initiatives alongside steps to make electricity systems more resilient to climate risks. By addressing these issues, policymakers can help alleviate the financial burden on households and support a more resilient and sustainable energy system.
Debates over policy impacts on electricity prices continue; in Alberta, federal policies are blamed by some for higher rates, illustrating how regulation can affect affordability.
In conclusion, the AP-NORC poll highlights the growing financial impact of extreme heat on American households, with rising electricity bills being a significant concern for many. The increased demand for cooling during heat waves is straining household budgets and raising broader questions about energy affordability and infrastructure resilience. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including efforts to combat climate change, improve energy efficiency, and provide support for those most affected by rising energy costs. As extreme heat events become more common, finding solutions to manage their impact will be crucial for both individual households and the broader energy system.
Trump NEPA Overhaul streamlines environmental reviews, tightening 'reasonably foreseeable' effects, curbing cumulative impacts, codifying CEQ greenhouse gas guidance, expediting permits for pipelines, highways, and wind projects with two-year EIS limits and one lead agency.
✅ Limits cumulative and indirect impacts; emphasizes foreseeable effects
✅ Caps EIS at two years; one-year environmental assessments
✅ One lead agency; narrower NEPA triggers for low federal funding
President Trump has announced plans for overhauling rules surrounding the nation’s bedrock environmental law, and administration officials refuted claims they were downplaying greenhouse gas emissions, as the administration also pursues replacement power plant rules in related areas.
The president, during remarks at the White House with supporters and Cabinet officials, said he wanted to fix the nation’s “regulatory nightmare” through new guidelines for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.
“America is a nation of builders,” he said. But it takes too long to get a permit, and that’s “big government at its absolute worst.”
The president said, “We’re maintaining America’s world-class standards of environmental protection.” He added, “We’re going to have very strong regulation, but it’s going to go very quickly.”
NEPA says the federal government must consider alternatives to major projects like oil pipelines, highways and bridges that could inflict environmental harm. The law also gives communities input.
The Council on Environmental Quality has not updated the implementing rules in decades, and both energy companies and environmentalists want them reworked, even as some industry groups warned against rushing electricity pricing changes under related policy debates.
But they patently disagree on how to change the rules.
A central fight surrounds whether the government considers climate change concerns when analyzing a project.
Environmentalists want agencies to look more at “cumulative” or “indirect” impacts of projects. The Trump plan shuts the door on that.
“Analysis of cumulative effects is not required,” the plan states, adding that CEQ “proposes to make amendments to simplify the definition of effects by consolidating the definition into a single paragraph.”
CEQ Chairwoman Mary Neumayr told reporters during a conference call that definitions in the current rules were the “subject of confusion.”
The proposed changes, she said, do in fact eliminate the terms “cumulative” and “indirect,” in favor of more simplified language.
Effects must be “reasonably foreseeable” and require a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the proposed action, she added. “It does not exclude considerations of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said, pointing to parallel EPA proposals for new pollution limits on coal and gas power plants as context.
Last summer, CEQ issued proposed guidance on greenhouse gas reviews in project permitting. The nonbinding document gave agencies broad authority when considering emissions (Greenwire, June 21, 2019).
Environmentalists scoffed and said the proposed guidance failed to incorporate the latest climate science and look at how projects could be more resilient in the face of severe weather and sea-level rise.
The proposed NEPA rules released today include provisions to codify the proposed guidance, which has also been years in the making.
Other provisions
Senior administration officials sought to downplay the effect of the proposed NEPA rules by noting the underlying statute will remain the same.
“If it required NEPA yesterday, it will require NEPA under the new proposal,” an official said when asked how the changes might apply to pipelines like Keystone XL.
And yet the proposed changes could alter the “threshold consideration” that triggers NEPA review. The proposal would exclude projects with minimal federal funding or “participation.”
The Trump plan also proposes restricting an environmental impact statement to two years and an environmental assessment to one.
Neumayr said the average EIS takes 4 ½ years and in some cases longer. Democrats have disputed those timelines. Further, just 1% of all federal actions require an EIS, they argue.
The proposal would also require one agency to take the lead on permitting and require agency officials to “timely resolve disputes that may result in delays.”
In general, the plan calls for environmental documents to be “concise” and “serve their purpose of informing decision makers.”
Both Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, whose agency moved to rewrite coal power plant wastewater limits in separate actions, were at the White House for the announcement.
Reaction
An onslaught of critics have said changes to NEPA rules could be the administration’s most far-reaching environmental rollback, and state attorneys general have mounted a legal challenge to related energy actions as well.
The League of Conservation Voters declared the administration was again trying to “sell out the health and well-being of our children and families to corporate polluters.”
On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said during a news conference the administration would “no longer enforce NEPA.”
“This means more polluters will be right there, next to the water supply of our children,” she said. “That’s a public health issue. Their denial of climate, they are going to not use the climate issue as anything to do with environmental decisionmaking.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) echoed the sentiment, saying he didn’t need any more proof that the fossil fuel industry had hardwired the Trump administration “but we got it anyway.”
Energy companies, including firms focused on renewable energy development, are welcoming the “clarity” of the proposed NEPA rules, even as debates continue over a clean electricity standard in federal climate policy.
“The lack of clarity in the existing NEPA regulations has led courts to fill the gaps, spurring costly litigation across the sector, and has led to unclear expectations, which has caused significant and unnecessary delays for infrastructure projects across the country,” the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said in a statement.
Last night, the American Wind Energy Association said NEPA rules have caused “unreasonable and unnecessary costs and long project delays” for land-based and offshore wind energy and transmission development.
Trump has famously attacked the wind energy industry for decades, dating back to his opposition to a Scottish wind turbine near his golf course.
The president today said he won’t stop until “gleaming new infrastructure has made America the envy of the world again.”
When asked whether he thought climate change was a “hoax,” as he once tweeted, he said no. “Nothing’s a hoax about that,” he said.
The president said there’s a book about climate he’s planning to read. He said, “It’s a very serious subject.”
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Nova Scotia Clean Power Plan 2030 pivots from the Atlantic Loop, scaling wind and solar, leveraging Muskrat Falls via the Maritime Link, adding battery storage and transmission upgrades to decarbonize grid and retire coal.
Key Points
Nova Scotia's 2030 roadmap to replace coal with wind, solar, hydro imports, storage, and grid upgrades.
✅ 1,000 MW onshore wind to supply 50% by 2030
✅ Battery storage sites and New Brunswick transmission upgrades
✅ Continued Muskrat Falls imports via Maritime Link
Nova Scotia is abandoning the proposed Atlantic Loop in its plan to decarbonize its electrical grid by 2030 amid broader discussions about independent grid planning nationwide, Natural Resources and Renewables Minister Tory Rushton has announced.
The province unveiled its clean power plan calling for 30 per cent more wind power and five per cent more solar energy in the Nova Scotia power grid over the coming years. Nova Scotia's plan relies on continued imports of hydroelectricity from the Muskrat Falls project in Labrador via the Emera-owned Maritime Link.
Right now Nova Scotia generates 60 per cent of its electricity by burning fossil fuels, mostly coal, and some increased use of biomass has also factored into the mix. Nova Scotia Power must close its coal plants by 2030 when 80 per cent of electricity must come from renewable sources in order reduce greenhouse gas emissions causing climate changes.
Critics have urged reducing biomass use in electricity generation across the province.
The clean power plan calls for an additional 1,000 megawatts of onshore wind by 2030 which would then generate 50 per cent of the the province's electricity, while also advancing tidal energy in the Bay of Fundy as a complementary source.
"We're taking the things already know and can capitalize on while we build them here in Nova Scotia," said Rushton, "More importantly, we're doing it at a lower rate so the ratepayers of Nova Scotia aren't going to bear the brunt of a piece of equipment that's designed and built and staying in Quebec."
The province says it can meet its green energy targets without importing Quebec hydro through the Atlantic loop. It would have brought hydroelectric power from Quebec into New Brunswick and Nova Scotia via upgraded transmission links. But the government said the cost is prohibitive, jumping to $9 billion from nearly $3 billion three years ago with no guarantee of a secure supply of power from Quebec.
"The loop is not viable for 2030. It is not necessary to achieve our goal," said David Miller, the provincial clean energy director.
Miller said the cost of $250 to $300 per megawatt hour was five times higher than domestic wind supply.
Some of the provincial plan includes three new battery storage sites and expanding the transmission link with New Brunswick. Both were Nova Scotia Power projects paused by the company after the Houston government imposed a cap on the utility's rate increased in the fall of 2022.
The province said building the 345-kilovolt transmission line between Truro, N.S., and Salisbury, N.B., and an extension to the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, as well as aligning with NB Power deals for Quebec electricity underway, would enable greater access to energy markets.
Miller says Nova Scotia Power has revived both.
Nova Scotia Power did not comment on the new plan, but Rushton spoke for the company.
"All indications I've had is Nova Scotia Power is on board for what is taking place here today," he said.
Manitoba's NDP administration has declared its intention to formulate a strategy for financing new energy ventures, following a decision to halt the development of additional private-sector wind farms and to extend a pause on new cryptocurrency connections amid grid pressures. This plan will accompany efforts to stabilize hydroelectric rates and manage the financial obligations of the province's state-operated energy company.
Finance Minister Adrien Sala, overseeing Manitoba Hydro, shared these insights during a legislative committee meeting on Thursday, emphasizing the government's desire for future energy expansions to remain under public ownership, even as Ontario moves to reintroduce renewable energy projects after prior cancellations, and expressing trust in Manitoba Hydro's governance to realize these goals.
This announcement was concurrent with Manitoba Hydro unveiling increased financial losses in its latest quarterly report. The utility anticipates a $190-million deficit for the fiscal year ending in March, marking a $29 million increase from its previous forecast and a significant deviation from an initial $450 million profit expectation announced last spring. Contributing factors to this financial downturn include reduced hydroelectric power generation due to drought conditions, diminished export revenues, and a mild fall season impacting heating demand.
The recent financial update aligns with a period of significant changes at Manitoba Hydro, initiated by the NDP government's board overhaul following its victory over the former Progressive Conservative administration in the October 3 election, and comes as wind projects are scrapped in Alberta across the broader Canadian energy landscape.
Subsequently, the NDP-aligned board discharged CEO Jay Grewal, who had advocated for integrating wind energy from third-party sources, citing competitive wind power trends, to promptly address the province's escalating energy requirements. Grewal's approach, though not unprecedented, sought to offer a quicker, more cost-efficient alternative to constructing new Manitoba Hydro dams, highlighting an imminent energy production shortfall projected for as early as 2029.
The opposition Progressive Conservatives have criticized the NDP for dismissing the wind power initiative without presenting an alternate solution, warning about costly cancellation fees seen in Ontario when projects are halted, and emphasizing the urgency of addressing the predicted energy gap.
In response, Sala reassured that the government is in the early stages of policy formulation, reflecting broader electricity policy debates in Ontario about how to fix the power system, and criticized the previous administration for its inaction on enhancing generation capacity during its tenure.
Manitoba Hydro has named Hal Turner as the acting CEO while it searches for Grewal's successor, following controversies such as Solar Energy Program mismanagement raised by a private developer. Turner informed the committee that the utility is still deliberating on its approach to new energy production and is exploring ways to curb rising demand.
Expressing optimism about collaborating with the new board, Turner is confident in finding a viable strategy to fulfill Manitoba's energy needs in a safe and affordable manner.
Additionally, the NDP's campaign pledge to freeze consumer rates for a year remains a priority, with Sala committing to implement this freeze before the next provincial election slated for 2027.
Bay of Fundy Tidal Energy advances as Nova Scotia permits Jupiter Hydro to test floating barge platforms with helical turbines in Minas Passage, supporting renewable power, grid-ready pilots, and green jobs in rural communities.
Key Points
A Nova Scotia tidal energy project using helical turbines to generate clean power and create local jobs.
✅ Permits enable 1-2 MW prototypes near Minas Passage
✅ Floating barge platforms with patented helical turbines
✅ PPA at $0.50/kWh with Nova Scotia Power
An Alberta-based company has been granted permission to try to harness electricity from the powerful tides of the Bay of Fundy.
Nova Scotia has issued two renewable energy permits to Jupiter Hydro.
Backers have long touted the massive energy potential of Fundy's tides -- they are among the world's most powerful -- but large-scale commercial efforts to harness them have borne little fruit so far, even as a Scottish tidal project recently generated enough power to supply nearly 4,000 homes elsewhere.
The Jupiter application says it will use three "floating barge type platforms" carrying its patented technology. The company says it uses helical turbines mounted as if they were outboard motors.
"Having another company test their technology in the Bay of Fundy shows that this early-stage industry continues to grow and create green jobs in our rural communities," Energy and Mines Minister Derek Mombourquette said in a statement.
The first permit allows the company to test a one-megawatt prototype that is not connected to the electricity grid.
The second -- a five-year permit for up to two megawatts -- is renewable if the company meets performance standards, environmental requirements and community engagement conditions.
Mombourquette also authorized a power purchase agreement that allows the company to sell the electricity it generates to the Nova Scotia grid through Nova Scotia Power for 50 cents per kilowatt hour.
On its web site, Jupiter says it believes its approach "will prove to be the most cost effective marine energy conversion technology in the world," even as other regional utilities consider initiatives like NB Power's Belledune concept for turning seawater into electricity.
The one megawatt unit would have screws which are about 5.5 metres in diameter.
The project is required to obtain all other necessary approvals, permits and authorizations.
It will be located near the Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy in the Minas Passage and will use existing electricity grid connections.
A study commissioned by the Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia says by 2040, the tidal energy industry could contribute up to $1.7 billion to Nova Scotia's gross domestic product and create up to 22,000 full-time jobs, a transition that some argue should be planned by an independent body to ensure reliability.
Last month, Nova Scotia Power said it now generates 30 per cent of its power from renewables, as the province moves to increase wind and solar projects after abandoning the Atlantic Loop.
The utility says 18 per cent came from wind turbines, nine per cent from hydroelectric and tidal turbines and three per cent by burning biomass across its fleet.
However, over half of the province's electrical generation still comes from the burning of coal or petroleum coke, even as environmental advocates push to reduce biomass use in the mix. Another 13 per cent come from burning natural gas and five per cent from imports.
