Nuclear Reactor Applications Expected

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

Key Points

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

✅ Limits telework to two days per week for many employees

✅ Allows flexible schedules, including maxiflex, during emergencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Natural Gas Power Demand is surging for electricity generation amid summer heat, with ERCOT, Texas grid reserves tight, EIA reporting coal and nuclear retirements, renewables intermittency, and pipeline expansions supporting combined-cycle capacity and prices.

Key Points

It is rising use of natural gas for power, driven by summer heat, plant retirements, and new combined-cycle capacity.

✅ ERCOT reserve margin 9%, below 14% target in Texas

✅ Gas share of U.S. power near 40-43% this summer

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements shift capacity to combined cycle

As the hot months linger, it will be natural gas that is leaned on most to supply the electricity that we need to run our air conditioning loads on the grid and keep us cool.

And this is surely a great and important thing: "Heat causes most weather-related deaths, National Weather Service says."

Generally, U.S. gas demand for power in summer is 35-40% higher than what it was five years ago, with so much more coming (see Figure).

The good news is regions across the country are expected to have plenty of reserves to keep up with power demand.

The only exception is ERCOT, covering 90% of the electric load in Texas, where a 9% reserve margin is expected, below the desired 14%.

Last summer, however, ERCOT’s reserve margin also was below the desired level, yet the grid operator maintained system reliability with no load curtailments.

Simply put, other states are very lucky that Texas has been able to maintain gas at 50% of its generation, despite being more than justified to drastically increase that.

At about 1,600 Bcf per year, the flatness of gas for power demand in Texas since 2000 has been truly remarkable, especially since Lone Star State production is up 50% since then.

Increasingly, other U.S. states (and even countries) are wanting to import huge amounts of gas from Texas, a state that yields over 25% of all U.S. output.

Yet if Texas justifiably ever wants to utilize more of its own gas, others would be significantly impacted.

At ~480 TWh per year, if Texas was a country, it would be 9th globally for power use, even ahead of Brazil, a fast growing economy with 212 million people, and France, a developed economy with 68 million people.

In the near-term, this explains why a sweltering prolonged heat wave in July in Texas, with a hot Houston summer setting new electricity records, is the critical factor that could push up still very low gas prices.

But for California, our second highest gas using state, above-average snowpack should provide a stronger hydropower for this summer season relative to 2018.

Combined, Texas and California consume about 25% of U.S. gas, with Texas' use double that of California.

Across the U.S., gas could supply a record 40-43% of U.S. electricity this summer even as the EIA expects solar and wind to be larger sources of generation across the mix

Our gas used for power has increased 35-40% over the past five years, and January power generation also jumped on the year, highlighting broad momentum.

Our gas used for power has increased 35-40% over the past five years. DATA SOURCE: EIA; JTC

Indeed, U.S. natural gas for electricity has continued to soar, even as overall electricity consumption has trended lower in some years, at nearly 10,700 Bcf last year, a 16% rise from 2017 and easily the highest ever.

Gas is expected to supply 37% of U.S. power this year, even as coal-fired generation saw a brief uptick in 2021 in EIA data, versus 27% just five years ago (see Figure).

Capacity wise, gas is sure to continue to surge its share 45% share of the U.S. power system.

"More than 60% of electric generating capacity installed in 2018 was fueled by natural gas."

We know that natural gas will continue to be the go-to power source: coal and nuclear plants are retiring, and while growing, wind and solar are too intermittent, geography limited, and transmission short to compensate like natural gas can.

"U.S. coal power capacity has fallen by a third since 2010," and last year "16 gigawatts (16,000 MW) of U.S. coal-fired power plants retired."

This year, some 2,000 MW of coal was retired in February alone, with 7,420 MW expected to be closed in 2019.

Ditto for nuclear.

Nuclear retirements this year include Pilgrim, Massachusetts’s only nuclear plant, and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

This will take a combined ~1,600 MW of nuclear capacity offline.

Another 2,500 MW and 4,300 MW of nuclear are expected to be leaving the U.S. power system in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

As more nuclear plants close, EIA projects that net electricity generation from U.S. nuclear power reactors will fall by 17% by 2025.

From 2019-2025 alone, EIA expects U.S. coal capacity to plummet nearly 25% to 176,000 MW, with nuclear falling 15% to 83,000 MW.

In contrast, new combined cycle gas plants will grow capacity almost 30% to around 310,000 MW.

Lower and lower projected commodity prices for gas encourage this immense gas build-out, not to mention non-stop increases in efficiency for gas-based units.

Remember that these are official U.S. Department of Energy estimates, not coming from the industry itself.

In other words, our Department of Energy concludes that gas is the future.

Our hotter and hotter summers are therefore more and more becoming: "summers for natural gas"

Ultimately, this shows why the anti-pipeline movement is so dangerous.

"Affordable Energy Coalition Highlights Ripple Effect of Natural Gas Moratorium."

In April, President Trump signed two executive orders to promote energy infrastructure by directing federal agencies to remove bottlenecks for gas transport into the Northeast in particular, where New England oil-fired generation has spiked, and to streamline federal reviews of border-crossing pipelines and other infrastructure.

Builders, however, are not relying on outside help: all they know is that more U.S. gas demand is a constant, so more infrastructure is mandatory.

They are moving forward diligently: for example, there are now some 27 pipelines worth $33 billion already in the works in Appalachia.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Summerside Wind Power reached 61% in May, blending renewable energy, municipal utility operations, and P.E.I. wind farms, driving city revenue, advancing green city goals, and laying groundwork for smart grid integration.

Key Points

Summerside Wind Power is the city utility's wind supply, 61% in May, generating revenue that supports local services.

✅ 61% of electricity in May from wind; annual target 45%.

✅ Mix of city-owned farm and West Cape Wind Farm contract.

✅ Revenues projected at $2.9M; funds municipal budget and services.

During the month of May, 61 per cent of the electricity Summerside's homes, businesses and industries used came from wind power sources.

25 per cent was purchased from the West Cape Wind Farm in West Point, P.E.I. — the city has had a contract with it since 2007. The other 36 per cent came from the city's own wind farm, which was built in 2009. 

"One of the strategic goals that was planned for by the city back in 2005 was to try to become a 100 per cent green city," said Greg Gaudet, Summerside's director of municipal services.

"The city started looking at ways it could adopt green practices into its operations on everything it owns and operates and provides services to the community."

Summerside Electric powers about 6,200 residential, 970 commercial and 30 industrial customers and also sells to NB Power, while Nova Scotia Power now generates 30 per cent of its electricity from renewables.

The Summerside Wind Farm is owned by the City of Summerside, which then sells the electricity to Summerside Electric, which it also owns, for profit. 

For the months of April and May, the wind farm generated $630,000 for the city. Last year, it was $507,000 over the same time frame, which does not include a 2 per cent rate increase imposed this year.

"We had a lot of good, strong days of wind for the month of May over other years. So normally we'd be on average somewhere in the range of the 45 per cent range for those months," said Gaudet. 

The city's annual target for wind generation is also 45 per cent, which aligns with the view that more energy sources make better projects. Gaudet said it balances out over the year, with winter being the best and production dropping as low as 25 per cent in the summer months.

At Summerside council's monthly meeting on Monday, May's 61 per cent figure was touted as one of the highest months on record.

"To have one at 61 per cent means we had great production from our wind facilities and contracts, though communities such as Portsmouth have raised turbine noise and flicker concerns in other contexts," Gaudet said.

The utility also owns and provides power through a diesel generation plant.

Municipal money maker
The municipality projects its wind energy production will generate $2.9 million for the city in its current fiscal year, which began April 1, paralleling job gains seen in Alberta's renewables surge this year.

"Any revenues that are received from the wind farm facility goes into the City of Summerside budget," Gaudet said. "Then the council decides on how that money is accrued and where it goes and what it supports in the community."

Wind power generated $2.89 million for the city in the 2019-2020 fiscal year. The budget originally projected $3.2 million in revenue, but blade damage sustained during post-tropical storm Dorian put two turbines out of commission for a few weeks.

Gaudet called this their "only bad year" and officials said they see this year's target to be a bit more conservative and achievable regardless of hiccups and uncontrollable forces, such as the wind they're harnessing.

"It's performed outstandingly well," said Gaudet of the operation.

"There's been no huge, major cost factors with the wind farm to date ... its production has been fairly consistent from year to year." 

Gaudet said the technology has already been piloted at a smaller operation at Credit Union Place, aligning with municipal solar power projects elsewhere.

The goal of the project is to bring Summerside's renewable portfolio up to a yearly average of 62 per cent. Gaudet said it's expected to be commissioned by May 2022 at the latest and after that, the city hopes to focus on smart grid technology.

"It's a long-term goal and I think it's the right [investment] to make," he said. "You have to be environmentally conscious and a steward of your community.

"I think Summerside is that and does that ... a model for North America to look at how a city can work a relationship with an electric utility for the betterment."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Electricity Pricing Pilot Projects explore alternative rates beyond time-of-use, with LDCs and the Ontario Energy Board testing dynamic pricing, demand management, smart-meter billing, and residential customer choice to enhance service and energy efficiency.

Key Points

Ontario LDC trials testing alternatives to time-of-use rates to improve billing, demand response, and efficiency.

✅ Data shared across LDCs and Ontario Energy Board provincewide

✅ Tests dynamic pricing, peak/off-peak plans, demand management

✅ Insights to enhance customer choice, bills, and energy savings

The results from three electricity pilot projects being offered in southern Ontario will be valuable to utility companies across the province.

Ontario Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault was in Barrie on Tuesday to announce the pilot projects, which will explore alternative pricing plans for electricity customers from three different utility companies, informed by the electricity cost allocation framework guiding rate design.

"Everyone in the industry is watching to see how the pilots deliver.", said Wendy Watson, director of communications for Greater Sudbury Utilities.

"The data will be shared will all the LDCs [local distribution companies] in the province, and probably beyond...because the industry tends to share that kind of information."

Most electricity customers in the province are billed using time-of-use rates, including options like the ultra-low overnight rates that lower costs during off-peak periods, where the cost of electricity varies depending on demand.

The Ontario Energy Board said in a media release that the projects will give residential customers more choice in how much they pay for electricity at different times, reflecting changes for Ontario electricity consumers that expand plan options.

Pilot projects can help improve service

Watson says these kinds of projects give LDCs the chance to experiment and explore new ways of delivering their service, including demand-response initiatives like the Peak Perks program that encourage conservation.

"Any pilot project is a great way to see if in practice if the theory proves out, so I think it's great that the province is supporting these LDCs," she says.

GSU recently completed its own pilot project, the Home Energy Assessment and Retrofit (HEAR) program, which focused on customers who use electric baseboards to heat their homes, amid broader provincial support for electric bills to ease costs."We installed some measures, like programmable thermostats and a few other pieces of equipment into their house," Watson says. "We also made some recommendations about other things that they could do to make their homes more energy efficient."

At the end of the program, GSU provided customers with a report so that they could the see the overall impact on their energy consumption.

Watson says a report on the results of the HEAR program will be released in the near future, for other LDCs interested in new ways to improve their service.

"We think it's incumbent on every LDC...to see what ideas that they can come up with and get approved so they can best serve their customers."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News