Big, breezy and relatively flat, Kansas is seen as one of the top states in the country for potential wind-generated electricity.
But efforts to increase wind power have been hurt by the rejection of the two coal-fired plants in western Kansas, supporters of the plants say.
Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, however, calls that assertion a "total myth." Last month, Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby rejected the $3.6 billion plants, citing health and environmental concerns over the projected emissions of 11 million tons of climate-changing carbon dioxide per year.
About 85 percent of the plants' electricity would have been sold to out-of-state customers. The project proposal by Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. would have included transmission lines that also could have transported power produced by wind turbines. The transmission lines are not economically feasible to build without the foundation of less expensive coal-fired power, the plants' supporters say.
"Regional transmission development will suffer if our project dies," said Earl Watkins Jr., president and chief executive officer of Sunflower Electric. "No one, and I repeat, no one will build new transmission to Colorado.
"And what right-minded utility in Colorado, Oklahoma or Texas would invest in or buy wind power from Kansas after being told to take their projects back home? Coloradans will buy Colorado wind, Oklahomans will buy Oklahoma wind, and Texans will buy Texas wind," Watkins said.
But Parkinson said that since the rejection of the plants, two transmission lines have been approved. One of those is a line proposed by Lawrence-based ITC Great Plains. The 180-mile high voltage line would run from Spearville, near Dodge City, southeast to Comanche County, and then northeast to Wichita.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius praised the proposal, saying, "These new transmission lines will help our state harness wind potential and provide short- and long-term investment in our communities." Parkinson said Kansas needs transmission lines to move power from western Kansas to the east, not in the other direction.
He said western states, such as Colorado, will not import Kansas wind power because they can generate their own. Kansas' opportunity to sell wind power is in the southeastern part of the United States, "which virtually has no wind resource," he said.
But state Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, a national-level expert on energy, said Parkinson was wrong.
"I go to a lot of meetings on wind energy, and I haven't seen a big market down there," in the southeastern United States, Sloan said. Sloan said a great market potential for Kansas wind power is in the opposite direction: California. And, he said, to economically justify a transmission line to carry power westward from western Kansas requires "anchor generation," such as coal, nuclear or natural gas.
Sunflower's Watkins said wind power can serve as a component of an energy portfolio, but because it is an intermittent resource, "it cannot serve base-load requirements."
About 3 percent of Kansas electricity today comes from wind power, mostly from three large-scale wind farms. Because of Kansas' size, high winds and relatively flat lands, especially in western Kansas, experts say the state should be one of the nation's leaders in wind energy.
Sebelius has set goals of increasing wind power to 10 percent of total electric use in Kansas by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020.
CER Interactive Electricity Bill Tool compares provincial electricity prices, fees, taxes, and usage. Explore household appliance costs, hydroelectric generation, and consumption trends across Canada with interactive calculators and a province-by-province breakdown.
Key Points
An online CER report with calculators comparing electricity prices, fees, and usage to explain household energy costs.
✅ Province-by-province bill, price, and consumption comparison
✅ Calculator for appliance and electronics energy costs
✅ Explains fees, taxes, regulation, and generation sources
Canadians have a new way to assess their electricity bill in a new, interactive online report released by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).
The report titled What is in a residential electricity bill? features a province-to-province comparison of electricity bills, generation and consumption. It also explains electricity prices across the country, including how Calgary electricity prices have changed, allowing people to understand why costs vary depending on location, fees, regulation and taxes.
Learn how fees and usage impacts your electricity bill in new online CER tool Interactive tools allow people to calculate the cost of household appliances and electronic use for each province and territory, and to understand how Ontario rate increases may affect monthly bills. For example, an individual can use the tools to find out that leaving a TV on for 24-hours in Quebec costs $5.25 per month, while that same TV on for a whole day would cost $12.29 per month in Saskatchewan, $20.49 per month in the Northwest Territories, and $15.30 per month in Nova Scotia.
How Canadians use energy varies as much as how provinces and territories produce it, especially in regions like Nunavut where unique conditions influence costs. Millions of Canadians rely on electricity to power their household appliances, charge their electronics, and heat their homes. Provinces with abundant hydro-electric resources like Quebec, B.C., Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador use electricity for home heating and tend to consume the most electricity.
By gathering data from various sources, this report is the first Canadian publication that features interactive tools to allow for a province-by-province comparison of electricity bills while highlighting different elements within an electricity bill, a helpful context as Canada faces a critical supply crunch in the years ahead.
The CER monitors energy markets and assesses Canadian energy requirements and trends, including clean electricity regulations developments that shape pricing. This report is part of a portfolio of publications on energy supply, demand and infrastructure that the CER publishes regularly as part of its ongoing market monitoring.
"No matter where you go in the country, Canadians want to know how much they pay for power and why, especially amid price spikes in Alberta this year," says lead author Colette Craig. "This innovative, interactive report really explains electricity bills to help everyone understand electricity pricing and consumption across Canada."
Quick Facts
Quebec ranks first in electricity consumption per capita at 21.0 MW.h, followed by Saskatchewan at 20.0 MW.h, Newfoundland and Labrador at 19.3 MW.h.
About 95% of Quebec's electricity is produced from hydroelectricity.
Provinces that use electricity for home heating tend to consume the most electricity.
Canada's largest consuming sector for electricity was industrial at 238 TW.h. The residential and commercial sectors consumed 168 TW.h and 126 TW.h, respectively.
In 2018, Canada produced 647.7 terawatt hours (TW.h) of electricity. More than half of the electricity in Canada (61%) is generated from hydro sources. The remainder is produced from a variety of sources, such as fossil fuels (natural gas and petroleum), nuclear, wind, coal, biomass, solar.
Canada is a net exporter of electricity. In 2019, net exports to the U.S. electricity market totaled 47.0 TW.h.
The total value of Canada's electricity exports was $2.5 billion Canadian dollars and the value of imports was $0.6 billion Canadian dollars, resulting in 2019 net exports of $1.9 billion.
All regions in Canada are reflected in this report but it does not include data that reflects the COVID-19 lockdown and its effects on residential electricity bills.
Tucson Electric Power Coal Phaseout advances an Integrated Resource Plan to exit Springerville coal by 2032, lift renewables past 70 percent by 2035, add wind, solar, battery storage, and cut carbon emissions 80 percent.
Key Points
A 2032 coal exit and 2035 plan to lift renewables above 70 percent, add wind, solar, storage, and cut CO2 80 percent.
✅ Coal purchases end at Springerville units by 2032
✅ Renewables exceed 70 percent of load by 2035
✅ 80 percent CO2 cut from 2005 baseline via wind, solar, storage
In a dramatic policy shift, Tucson Electric Power says it will stop using coal to generate electricity by 2032 and will increase renewable energy's share of its energy load to more than 70% by 2035.
As part of that change, the utility will stop buying electricity from its two units at its coal-fired Springerville Generating Station by 2032. The plant, TEP's biggest power source, provides about 35% of its energy.
The utility already had planned to start up two New Mexico wind farms and a solar storage plant in the Tucson area by next year. The new plan calls for adding an additional 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2035.
The utility's switch from fossil fuels is spelled out in the plan, submitted to the Arizona Corporation Commission, amid shifts in federal power plant rules that could affect implementation. Called an Integrated Resource Plan, it would reduce TEP's carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2035 compared with 2005 levels.
The plan drew generally positive reviews from a number of environmentalists and other representatives of an advisory committee that had worked with TEP for a year.
Two commissioners, Chairman Bob Burns and Tucsonan Lea Marquez Peterson, also generally praised the plan, although they held off on final judgment.
University of Arizona researchers said the plan would likely meet the utility's share of the worldwide goal of holding down global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, or about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels, even as studies find that climate change threatens grid reliability in many regions.
But a representative of AARP and the Pima Council on Aging expressed concern because the plan would require 1% annual electric rate increases a year to put into effect.
Officials in the eastern Arizona town of Springerville aren't happy.
And Sierra Club official Sandy Bahr said the plan doesn't move fast enough to get TEP off coal. She listed 14 separate units of various Western coal-fired plants that are scheduled to shut down sooner than 2032, many in the 2020s.
But TEP says the plan best balances costs and environmental benefits compared with 24 others it reviewed.
"We know our customers want safe, reliable energy from resources that are both affordable and environmentally responsible. TEP's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan will help us maintain that delicate balance," TEP CEO David Hutchens wrote in the forward to the plan.
The plan isn't legally binding but is aimed at sending a signal to regulators and the public about TEP's future direction. TEP and other regulated Arizona utilities update such plans every three years.
TEP has been one of the West's more fossil-fuel-friendly utilities. It stuck with coal even as many other utilities were moving away from it, including Alliant Energy's carbon-neutral plan to cut emissions and costs, and as the Sierra Club called on utilities to move beyond what it termed a highly polluting energy source that emits large quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global warming.
Last year, TEP got 13% of its electricity from renewables such as wind farms and solar plants along with photovoltaic solar panels atop individual homes. Fossil fuels coal and natural gas supplied the rest, a University of Arizona study paid for by TEP found.
Economics, not just emissions, a big factor
TEP's previous resource plan, from 2017, called for boosting renewable use to 30% by 2030 and to cut coal to 38% of its electric load by then from 69% in 2017, reflecting broader 2017 utility trends across the industry.
A TEP official said last week the utility is heading in a different direction not only due to concerns about greenhouse gas emissions but because of changing economics.
"For the last several decades, coal was the most economical resource. It was the lowest-cost resource to supply energy for our customers, and it wasn't really close," said Jeff Yockey, TEP's resource planning director.
But over the past few years, first natural gas prices and more recently solar and wind energy prices have fallen dramatically, he said.
Their prices are projected to keep falling, along with the cost of battery-fueled storage of solar energy for use when the sun is down, he said.
"Coal just isn't the most economical resource" now, Yockey said.
Yet the utility still needs, for now, the extra energy capacity that coal provides, he said, even as other states outline ways to improve grid reliability through targeted investments.
"Being a utility with no nuclear or hydro(electric) energy, with coal, there is reliability, a fuel on the ground, 30 or 90 days supply," he said. "It's the only source not subject to disruption in the next hour. It's our only long-term, stable fuel supply. Over time, we will be able to overcome that."
UA researchers, community panel worked on plan
TEP paid the UA $100,000 to have three researchers prepare two reports, one comparing 24 different proposals and a second comparing TEP's fossil fuel/renewable split with those of other utilities.
Also, the utility appointed an advisory council representing environmental, business and government interests that met regularly to guide TEP in producing the plan. The utility chose a preferred energy "portfolio," Yockey said.
The goal "was very much about basically achieving significant emissions reductions as quickly as we can and as cost effectively as we can," he said. TEP wanted the biggest cumulative emission cut possible over 15 years.
"If it was just about cost, we wouldn't have selected the portfolio that we selected. It wasn't the lowest cost portfolio."
UA assistant research professors Ben McMahan and Will Holmgren said combined carbon dioxide emission reductions from TEP's new plan over 15 years would be expected to hit the Paris accord's 2-degree target.
"There is considerable uncertainty about what will happen between now and 2050, but the preferred portfolio's early start on reductions and lowest cumulative emissions is certainly a positive sign that well below 2C is achievable," the researchers said in an email.
Environmentalists pleased, but some want coal cut sooner
The Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project and Pima County offered varying degrees of praise for the new TEP plan.
In a memo Friday, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry congratulated TEP for "the comprehensive, inclusive and transparent process" used to develop the plan.
Because of UA's involvement, TEP's advisory council and the public "can feel confident that the utility is on track to make significant progress in curbing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change," Huckelberry wrote.
The TEP plan "is the most aggressive commitment to reducing emissions by a utility in Arizona," said Autumn Johnson of Western Resource Advocates in a news release.
"Adding clean energy generation and storage while accelerating the retirement of coal units will ensure a healthier and better future for Arizonans," said Johnson, an energy policy analyst in Phoenix.
The Sierra Club will have a technical expert review the plan and already wants more energy savings, said Bahr, director of the group's Grand Canyon chapter. But overall, this plan is a step in the right direction for TEP, she said.
By comparison, Arizona Public Service's new resource plan only calls for 45% renewable energy by 2030, Bahr noted, while California regulators consider more power plants to ensure reliability. APS committed to going coal-free by 2031.
A Sierra Club proposal that the UA reviewed called for TEP to quit coal by 2027.
But TEP analyzed that proposal and concluded it would require $300 million in investments and would reduce the utility's cumulative emissions by only 2.4 million tons, to 70.2 million tons by 2035, Yockey said.
The Sierra Club plan was the most expensive portfolio investigated, Yockey said.
"The difference is in the timing. We still have a fair amount of value in our coal plants which we need to depreciate, which we do over time," Yockey said. "Trying to replace the capacity that coal provides in the near term with storage and solar is very expensive, although those costs are declining."
Seniors on fixed incomes could be hurt, advocate says
Rene Pina, an advisory council member representing two senior citizen organizations, praised the plan's goals but was concerned about impacts of even 1% annual rate increases on elderly people on fixed incomes.
They can't always handle such an increase, he said.
One possible fix is that TEP could ease eligibility requirements for its low-income energy assistance program, aligning with equity-focused electricity regulation principles, to allow more seniors to benefit, said Pina, representing AARP and the Pima Council on Aging.
"The program is structured so it just barely disqualifies most of our seniors. Their social security pension is just barely over the low-income limit. It can easily be adjusted without any problems to the utility," Pina said.
Advisory council member Rob Lamb, an engineer with GHLN, an architecture-engineering firm, said he was very pleased with TEP's plan.
"One of the things a lot of people don't realize when they put together a plan like that, is they have to balance environment with 'Hey, what's the reliability of service? Are we going to be able to keep our rates for something that will work?'" Lamb said.
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.
Hydro-Québec Carillon Refurbishment delivers a $750M hydropower modernization, replacing six turbines and upgrading civil works, water passageways, and grid equipment to extend run-of-river, renewable energy output for peak demand near Montréal.
Key Points
A $750M project replacing six units and upgrading civil, water and electrical systems to supply power for 50 years.
✅ Replaces six generating units with Andritz turbines.
✅ Upgrades civil works, water passageways, and electrical gear.
✅ Extends run-of-river output for 50 years; boosts peak supply.
Hydro-Québec will invest $750 million to refurbish its Carillon generating station with a major powerhouse upgrade that will mainly replace six generating units. The investment also covers the cost of civil engineering work, including making adjustments to water passageways, upgrading electrical equipment and replacing the station roof. Work will start in 2021, aligning with Hydro-Québec's capacity expansion plans for 2021, and continue until 2027.
Carillon generating station is a run-of-river power plant consisting of 14 generating units with a total installed capacity of 753 MW. Built in the early 1960s, it is a key part of Hydro-Québec's hydroelectric generating fleet, which includes the La Romaine complex as well. The station is close to the greater Montréal area and feeds power into the grid to support industrial demand growth during peak consumption periods.
The selected supplier, turbine manufacturer Andritz, has been asked to maximize the project's economic spinoffs in Québec, as Canada continues investing in new turbines across the country to modernize assets. Once the work is completed, the new generating units will be able to provide clean, renewable energy, supporting Hydro-Québec's strategy to reduce fossil fuel reliance for the next 50 years.
"Carillon generating station is a symbol of our hydroelectric development and plays a strategic role in our production fleet. However, most of the generating units' main components date back to the station's original construction from 1959 to 1962. Hydropower generating stations have long service lives - with this refurbishment, Carillon will be producing clean renewable energy for decades to come." said David Murray, Chief Innovation Officer and President, Hydro-Québec Production.
"In light of today's economic situation, this is an important announcement that clearly reaffirms Hydro-Québec's role in relaunching Québec's economy and strengthening interprovincial electricity partnerships that open new markets. Over 600,000 hours of work will be required for everything from the engineering work to component assembly, creating many new high-quality skilled jobs for Québec industries."
Ultra-Low Overnight Price Plan delivers flexible electricity pricing from Hydro One and the Ontario Energy Board, with TOU, tiered options, off-peak EV charging savings, balanced billing, and an online calculator to optimize bills.
Key Points
An Ontario pricing option with ultra-low night rates, helping Hydro One customers save by shifting usage to off-peak.
✅ Four periods with ultra-low overnight rate for EV charging
✅ Compare TOU vs tiered with Hydro One's online calculator
✅ Balanced billing and due date choice support budget control
Hydro One has announced that customers have even more choice and flexibility when it comes to how they are billed for electricity with the company's launch of the Ontario Energy Board's new Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Price Plan for customers. A new survey of Ontario customers, conducted by Innovative Research Group, shows that 74 per cent of Ontarians find having choice between electricity pricing plans useful.
"As their trusted energy advisor, we want our customers to know we have the insights and tools to help them make the right choice when it comes to their electricity plans," said Teri French, Executive Vice President, Safety, Operations and Customer Experience. "We know that choice and flexibility are important to our customers, and we are proud to now offer them a third option so they can select the plan that best fits their lifestyle."
The same survey revealed that fewer than half of Ontarians are familiar with either tiered or the new ultra-low overnight price plans. To better support its customers Hydro One is providing an online calculator to help them choose which pricing plan best suits their lifestyle. The company also offers additional flexibility and assistance in managing household budgets by providing customers with the ability to choose their billing due date and flatten usage spikes from temperature fluctuations through balanced billing.
During the pandemic, Ontario introduced electricity relief to support families, small businesses and farms, complementing these customer options.
"By offering families and small businesses more choice, we are putting them back in control of their energy bills," said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. "Starting today Hydro One customers have a new option - the Ultra-Low Electricity Price Plan - which could help them save money each year, while making our province's grid more efficient."
Electricity price plan options
New Ultra-Low Overnight price plan (ULO): Designed for customers who use more electricity at night, such as those who charge their electric vehicle, this new price plan can help customers keep costs down and take control of their electricity bill by shifting usage to the ultra-low overnight price period and related off-peak electricity rates when province-wide electricity demand is lower.
This plan has four price periods that are the same in the summer as they are in the winter and includes an ultra-low overnight rate.
Time-of-Use price plan (TOU): TOU provides customers with more control over their electricity bill by adjusting their usage habits with time-of-use rates used in other jurisdictions as well.
In this plan, electricity prices change throughout each weekday, when demand is on-peak, and peak hydro rates can affect overall costs.
Tiered price plan (RPP): Tiered pricing provides customers with the flexibility to use electricity at any time of day at the same low price up until the threshold is exceeded during the month, after that usage is charged at a higher price.
For residential customers, the winter period (November 1 – April 30) threshold is 1,000 kWh per month and the summer period (May 1 – October 31) threshold is 600 kWh per month.
For small business customers, the threshold is 750 kWh throughout the year, while broader stable electricity pricing supports industrial and commercial companies.
DTEK Rotterdam+ price-fixing case scrutinizes alleged collusion over coal-based electricity tariffs in Ukraine, with NABU probing NERC regulators, market manipulation, consumer overpayment, and wholesale pricing tied to imported coal benchmarks.
Key Points
NABU probes alleged DTEK-NERC collusion to inflate coal power tariffs via Rotterdam+; all suspects deny wrongdoing.
✅ NABU alleges tariff manipulation tied to coal import benchmarks.
✅ Four DTEK execs and four NERC officials reportedly charged.
✅ Probe centers on 2016-2017 overpayments; defendants contest.
Two more executives of DTEK, Ukraine’s largest private power and coal producer and recently in energy talks with Octopus Energy, have been charged in a criminal case on August 14 involving an alleged conspiracy to fix electricity prices with the state energy regulator, Interfax reported.
They are Ivan Helyukh, the CEO of subsidiary DTEK Grid, which operates as Ukraine modernizes its network alongside global moves toward a smart electricity grid, and Borys Lisoviy, a top manager of power generation company Skhidenergo, according to Kyiv-based Concorde Capital investment bank.
Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) alleges that now four DTEK managers “pressured” and colluded with four regulators at the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission to manipulate tariffs on electricity generated from coal that forced consumers to overpay, reflecting debates about unjustified profits in the UK, $747 million in 2016-2017.
DTEK allegedly benefited $560 million in the scheme.
All eight suspects are charged with “abuse of office” and deny wrongdoing, similar to findings in a B.C. Hydro regulator report published in Canada.
There is “no legitimate basis for suspicions set out in the investigation,” DTEK said in an August 8 statement.
Suspect Dmytro Vovk, the former head of NERC, dismissed the investigation as a “wild goose chase” on Facebook.
In separate statements over the past week, DTEK said the managers who are charged have prematurely returned from vacation to “fully cooperate” with authorities in order to “help establish the truth.”
A Kyiv court on August 14 set bail at $400,000 for one DTEK manager who wasn’t named, as enforcement actions like the NT Power penalty highlight regulatory consequences.
The so-called Rotterdam+ pricing formula that NABU has been investigating since March 2017, similar to federal scrutiny of TVA rates, was in place from April 2016 until July of this year.
It based the wholesale price of electricity by Ukrainian thermal power plants on coal prices set in the Rotterdam port plus delivery costs to Ukraine.
NABU alleges that at certain times it has not seen documented proof that the purchased coal originated in Rotterdam, insisting that there was no justification for the price hikes, echoing issues around paying for electricity in India in some markets.
Ukraine started facing thermal-coal shortages after fighting between government forces and Russia-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country erupted in April 2014. A vast majority of the anthracite-coal mines on which many Ukrainian plants rely are located on territory controlled by the separatists.
Overnight, Ukraine went from being a net exporter of coal to a net importer and started purchasing coal from as far away as South Africa and Australia.
