Ontario looks to build on electricity deal with Quebec

Georgia Electricity Imports October 2017 surged as hydropower output fell and thermal power plants underperformed; ESCO balanced demand via low-cost imports, mainly from Azerbaijan, amid rising tariffs, kWh consumption growth, and a widening generation-consumption gap.

Key Points

They mark a record import surge due to costly local generation, lower hydropower, ESCO balancing costs, and rising demand.

✅ Imports rose 832% YoY to 157 mln kWh, mainly from Azerbaijan

✅ TPP output fell despite capacity; only low-tariff plants ran

✅ Balancing price 13.8 tetri/kWh signaled costly domestic PPAs

In October 2017, Georgian power plants generated 828 mln. KWh of electricity, marginally up (+0.79%) compared to September. Following the traditional seasonal pattern and amid European concerns over dispatchable power shortages affecting markets, the share of electricity produced by renewable sources declined to 71% of total generation (87% in September), while thermal power generation’s share increased, accounting for 29% of total generation (compared to 13% in September). When we compare last October’s total generation with the total generation of October 2016, however, we observe an 8.7% decrease in total generation (in October 2016, total generation was 907 mln. kWh). The overall decline in generation with respect to the previous year is due to a simultaneous decline in both thermal power and hydro power generation. 

Consumption of electricity on the local market in the same period was 949 mln. kWh (+7% compared to October 2016, and +3% with respect to September 2017), and reflected global trends such as India's electricity growth in recent years. The gap between consumption and generation increased to 121 mln. kWh (15% of the amount generated in October), up from 100 mln. kWh in September. Even more importantly, the situation was radically different with respect to the prior year, when generation exceeded consumption.

The import figure for October was by far the highest from the last 12 years (since ESCO was established), occurring as Ukraine electricity exports resumed regionally, highlighting wider cross-border dynamics. In October 2017, Georgia imported 157 mln. kWh of electricity (for 5.2 ¢/kWh – 13 tetri/kWh). This constituted an 832% increase compared to October 2016, and is about 50% larger than the second largest import figure (104.2 mln. kWh in October 2014). Most of the October 2017 imports (99.6%) came from Azerbaijan, with the remaining 0.04% coming from Russia.

The main question that comes to mind when observing these statistics is: why did Georgia import so much? One might argue that this is just the result of a bad year for hydropower generation and increased demand. This argument, however, is not fully convincing. While it is true that hydropower generation declined and demand increased, the country’s excess demand could have been easily satisfied by its existing thermal power plants, even as imported coal volumes rose in regional markets. Instead of increasing, however, the electricity coming from thermal power plants declined as well. Therefore, that cannot be the reason, and another must be found. The first that comes to mind is that importing electricity may have been cheaper than buying it from local TPPs, or from other generators selling electricity to ESCO under power purchase agreements (PPAs). We can test the first part of this hypothesis by comparing the average price of imported electricity to the price ceiling on the tariff that TPPs can charge for the electricity they sell. Looking at the trade statistics from Geostat, the average price for imported electricity in October 2017 remained stable with respect to the same month of the previous year, at 5.2 ¢ (13 tetri) per kWh. Only two thermal power plants (Gardabani and Mtkvari) had a price ceiling below 13 tetri per kWh. Observing the electricity balance of Georgia, we see that indeed more than 98% of the electricity generated by TPPs in October 2017 was generated by those two power plants.

What about other potential sources of electricity amid Central Asia's power shortages at the time? To answer this question, we can use the information derived from the weighted average price of balancing electricity. Why balancing electricity? Because it allows us to reconstruct the costs the market operator (ESCO) faced during the month of October to make sure demand and supply were balanced, and it allows us to gain an insight about the price of electricity sold through PPAs.

ESCO reports that the weighted average price of balancing electricity in October 2017 was 13.8 tetri/kWh, (25% higher than in October 2016, when it was below the average weighted cost of imports – 11 vs. 13 – and when the quantity of imported electricity was substantially smaller). Knowing that in October 2017, 61% of balancing electricity came from imports, while 39% came from hydropower and wind power plants selling electricity to ESCO under their PPAs, we can deduce that in this case, internal generation was (on average) also substantially more expensive than imports. Therefore, the high cost of internally generated electricity, rather than the technical impossibility of generating enough electricity to satisfy electricity demand, indeed appears to be one the main reasons why electricity imports spiked in October 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Hydro rate hikes face public hearings over electricity rates, utility bills, and debt, with impacts on low-income households, Indigenous communities, and Winnipeg services amid credit rating pressure and rising energy costs.

Key Points

Manitoba Hydro seeks 7.9% annual increases to stabilize finances and debt, impacting electricity costs for households.

✅ Proposed hikes: 7.9% yearly through 2023/24

✅ Driven by debt, credit rating declines, rising interest

✅ Disproportionate impact on low-income and Indigenous communities

Hearings began Monday into Manitoba Hydro’s request for consecutive annual rate hikes of 7.9 per cent.  The crown corporation is asking for the steep hikes to commence April 1, 2018.

The increases would continue through 2023/2024, under a multi-year rate plan before dropping to what Hydro calls “sustainable” levels.

Patti Ramage, legal counsel for Hydro, said while she understands no one welcomes the “exceptional” rate increases, the company is dealing with exceptional circumstances.

It’s the largest rate increase Hydro has ever asked for, though a scaled-back increase was discussed later, saying rising debt and declining credit ratings are affecting its financial stability.

President and CEO Kelvin Shepherd said Hydro is borrowing money to fund its interest payments, and acknowledged that isn’t an effective business model.

Hydro’s application states that it will be spending up to 63 per cent of its revenue on paying financial expenses if the current request for rate hikes is not approved.

If it does get the increase it wants, that number could shrink to 45 per cent – which Ramage says is still quite high, but preferable to the alternative.

She cited the need to take immediate action to fix Hydro’s finances instead of simply hoping for the best.

“The worst thing we can do is defer action… that’s why we need to get this right,” Ramage said.

A number of intervenors presented varying responses to Hydro’s push for increased rates, with many focusing on how the hikes would affect Manitobans with lower incomes.

Senwung Luk spoke on behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and said the proposed rates would hit First Nations reserves particularly hard.

He noted that 44.2 per cent of housing on reserves in the province needs significant improvement, which means electricity use tends to be higher to compensate for the lower quality of infrastructure.

Luk says this problem is compounded by the higher rates of poverty in Indigenous populations, with 76 per cent of children on reserves in Manitoba living below the poverty line.

If the increase goes forward, he said the AMC hopes to see a reduced rate for those living on reserves, despite a recent appeal court ruling on such pricing.

Byron Williams, speaking on behalf of the Consumers Coalition, said the 7.9 per cent increase unreasonably favours the interests of Hydro, and is unjustly biased against virtually everyone else.

In Saskatchewan, the NDP criticized an SaskPower 8 per cent rate hike as unfair to customers, highlighting regional concerns.

Williams said customers using electric space heating would be more heavily targeted by the rate increase, facing an extra $13.14 a month as opposed to the $6.88 that would be tacked onto the bills of those not using electric space heating.

Williams also called Hydro’s financial forecasts unreliable, bringing the 7.9 per cent figure into question.

Lawyer George Orle, speaking for the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, said the proposed rate hikes would “make a mockery” of the sacrifices made by First Nations across the province, given that so much of Hydro’s infrastructure is on Indigenous land.

The city of Winnipeg also spoke out against the jump, saying property taxes could rise or services could be cut if the hikes go ahead to compensate for increased, unsustainable electricity costs.

In British Columbia, a BC Hydro 3 per cent increase also moved forward, drawing attention to affordability.

A common theme at the hearing was that Hydro’s request was not backed by facts, and that it was heading towards fear-mongering.

Manitoba Hydro’s CEO begged to differ as he plead his case during the first hearing of a process that is expected to take 10 weeks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Russian Cyberattacks on U.S. Critical Infrastructure target energy grids, nuclear plants, water systems, and aviation, DHS and FBI warn, using spear phishing, malware, and ICS/SCADA intrusion to gain footholds for potential sabotage and disruption.

Key Points

State-backed hacks targeting U.S. energy, nuclear, water and aviation via phishing and ICS access for sabotage.

✅ DHS and FBI detail multi-stage intrusion since 2016

✅ Targets include energy, nuclear, water, aviation, manufacturing

✅ TTPs: spear phishing, lateral movement, ICS reconnaissance

Russia is attacking the U.S. energy grid, with reported power plant breaches unfolding alongside attacks on nuclear facilities, water processing plants, aviation systems, and other critical infrastructure that millions of Americans rely on, according to a new joint analysis by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

In an unprecedented alert, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI have warned of persistent attacks by Russian government hackers on critical US government sectors, including energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation and manufacturing.

The alert details numerous attempts extending back to March 2016 when Russian cyber operatives targeted US government and infrastructure.

The DHS and FBI said: “DHS and FBI characterise this activity as a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber-actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks, where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing and gained remote access into energy sector networks.

“After obtaining access, the Russian government cyber-actors conducted network reconnaissance, moved laterally and collected information pertaining to industrial control systems.”

The Trump administration has accused Russia of engineering a series of cyberattacks that targeted American and European nuclear power plants and water and electric systems, and could have sabotaged or shut power plants off at will.

#google#

United States officials and private security firms saw the attacks as a signal by Moscow that it could disrupt the West’s critical facilities in the event of a conflict.

They said the strikes accelerated in late 2015, at the same time the Russian interference in the American election was underway. The attackers had compromised some operators in North America and Europe by spring 2017, after President Trump was inaugurated.

In the following months, according to the DHS/FBI report, Russian hackers made their way to machines with access to utility control rooms and critical control systems at power plants that were not identified. The hackers never went so far as to sabotage or shut down the computer systems that guide the operations of the plants.

Still, new computer screenshots released by the Department of Homeland Security have made clear that Russian state hackers had the foothold they would have needed to manipulate or shut down power plants.

“We now have evidence they’re sitting on the machines, connected to industrial control infrastructure, that allow them to effectively turn the power off or effect sabotage,” said Eric Chien, a security technology director at Symantec, a digital security firm.

“From what we can see, they were there. They have the ability to shut the power off. All that’s missing is some political motivation,” Mr. Chien said.

American intelligence agencies were aware of the attacks for the past year and a half, and the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. first issued urgent warnings to utility companies in June, 2017. Both DHS/FBI have now offered new details as the Trump administration imposed sanctions against Russian individuals and organizations it accused of election meddling and “malicious cyberattacks.”

It was the first time the administration officially named Russia as the perpetrator of the assaults. And it marked the third time in recent months that the White House, departing from its usual reluctance to publicly reveal intelligence, blamed foreign government forces for attacks on infrastructure in the United States.

In December, the White House said North Korea had carried out the so-called WannaCry attack that in May paralyzed the British health system and placed ransomware in computers in schools, businesses and homes across the world. Last month, it accused Russia of being behind the NotPetya attack against Ukraine last June, the largest in a series of cyberattacks on Ukraine to date, paralyzing the country’s government agencies and financial systems.

But the penalties have been light. So far, President Trump has said little to nothing about the Russian role in those attacks.

The groups that conducted the energy attacks, which are linked to Russian intelligence agencies, appear to be different from the two hacking groups that were involved in the election interference.

That would suggest that at least three separate Russian cyberoperations were underway simultaneously. One focused on stealing documents from the Democratic National Committee and other political groups. Another, by a St. Petersburg “troll farm” known as the Internet Research Agency, used social media to sow discord and division. A third effort sought to burrow into the infrastructure of American and European nations.

For years, American intelligence officials tracked a number of Russian state-sponsored hacking units as they successfully penetrated the computer networks of critical infrastructure operators across North America and Europe, including in Ukraine.

Some of the units worked inside Russia’s Federal Security Service, the K.G.B. successor known by its Russian acronym, F.S.B.; others were embedded in the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the G.R.U. Still others were made up of Russian contractors working at the behest of Moscow.

Russian cyberattacks surged last year, starting three months after Mr. Trump took office.

American officials and private cybersecurity experts uncovered a series of Russian attacks aimed at the energy, water and aviation sectors and critical manufacturing, including nuclear plants, in the United States and Europe. In its urgent report in June, the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. notified operators about the attacks but stopped short of identifying Russia as the culprit.

By then, Russian spies had compromised the business networks of several American energy, water and nuclear plants, mapping out their corporate structures and computer networks.

They included that of the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, which runs a nuclear plant near Burlington, Kan. But in that case, and those of other nuclear operators, Russian hackers had not leapt from the company’s business networks into the nuclear plant controls.

Forensic analysis suggested that Russian spies were looking for inroads — although it was not clear whether the goal was to conduct espionage or sabotage, or to trigger an explosion of some kind.

In a report made public in October, Symantec noted that a Russian hacking unit “appears to be interested in both learning how energy facilities operate and also gaining access to operational systems themselves, to the extent that the group now potentially has the ability to sabotage or gain control of these systems should it decide to do so.”

The United States sometimes does the same thing. It bored deeply into Iran’s infrastructure before the 2015 nuclear accord, placing digital “implants” in systems that would enable it to bring down power grids, command-and-control systems and other infrastructure in case a conflict broke out. The operation was code-named “Nitro Zeus,” and its revelation made clear that getting into the critical infrastructure of adversaries is now a standard element of preparing for possible conflict.

Reconstructed screenshot fragments of a Human Machine Interface that the threat actors accessed, according to DHS

Sanctions Announced

The US treasury department has imposed sanctions on 19 Russian people and five groups, including Moscow’s intelligence services, for meddling in the US 2016 presidential election and other malicious cyberattacks.

Russia, for its part, has vowed to retaliate against the new sanctions.

The new sanctions focus on five Russian groups, including the Russian Federal Security Service, the country’s military intelligence apparatus, and the digital propaganda outfit called the Internet Research Agency, as well as 19 people, some of them named in the indictment related to election meddling released by special counsel Robert Mueller last month.

In announcing the sanctions, which will generally ban U.S. people and financial institutions from doing business with those people and groups, the Treasury Department pointed to alleged Russian election meddling, involvement in the infrastructure hacks, and the NotPetya malware, which the Treasury Department called “the most destructive and costly cyberattack in history.”

The new sanctions come amid ongoing criticism of the Trump administration’s reluctance to punish Russia for cyber and election meddling. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said that, ahead of the 2018 mid-term elections, the administration’s decision was long overdue but not enough. “Nearly all of the entities and individuals who were sanctioned today were either previously under sanction during the Obama Administration, or had already been charged with federal crimes by the Special Counsel,” Warner said.

Warning: The Russians Are Coming

In an updated warning to utility companies, DHS/FBI officials included a screenshot taken by Russian operatives that proved they could now gain access to their victims’ critical controls, prompting a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid among operators.

American officials and security firms, including Symantec and CrowdStrike, believe that Russian attacks on the Ukrainian power grid in 2015 and 2016 that left more than 200,000 citizens there in the dark are an ominous sign of what the Russian cyberstrikes may portend in the United States and Europe in the event of escalating hostilities.

Private security firms have tracked the Russian government assaults on Western power and energy operators — conducted alternately by groups under the names Dragonfly campaigns alongside Energetic Bear and Berserk Bear — since 2011, when they first started targeting defense and aviation companies in the United States and Canada.

By 2013, researchers had tied the Russian hackers to hundreds of attacks on the U.S. power grid and oil and gas pipeline operators in the United States and Europe. Initially, the strikes appeared to be motivated by industrial espionage — a natural conclusion at the time, researchers said, given the importance of Russia’s oil and gas industry.

But by December 2015, the Russian hacks had taken an aggressive turn. The attacks were no longer aimed at intelligence gathering, but at potentially sabotaging or shutting down plant operations.

At Symantec, researchers discovered that Russian hackers had begun taking screenshots of the machinery used in energy and nuclear plants, and stealing detailed descriptions of how they operated — suggesting they were conducting reconnaissance for a future attack.

Eventhough the US government enacted sanctions, cybersecurity experts are still questioning where the Russian attacks could lead, given that the United States was sure to respond in kind.

“Russia certainly has the technical capability to do damage, as it demonstrated in the Ukraine,” said Eric Cornelius, a cybersecurity expert at Cylance, a private security firm, who previously assessed critical infrastructure threats for the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration.

“It is unclear what their perceived benefit would be from causing damage on U.S. soil, especially given the retaliation it would provoke,” Mr. Cornelius said.

Though a major step toward deterrence, publicly naming countries accused of cyberattacks still is unlikely to shame them into stopping. The United States is struggling to come up with proportionate responses to the wide variety of cyberespionage, vandalism and outright attacks.

Lt. Gen. Paul Nakasone, who has been nominated as director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, the military’s cyberunit, said during his recent Senate confirmation hearing, that countries attacking the United States so far have little to worry about.

“I would say right now they do not think much will happen to them,” General Nakasone said. He later added, “They don’t fear us.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

FPL Hurricane Surcharge explained: restoration costs, Florida PSC review, rate impacts, grid resilience, and transparency after Hurricanes Debby and Helene as FPL funds infrastructure hardening and rapid storm recovery across Florida.

Key Points

A fee by Florida Power & Light to recoup hurricane restoration costs, under Florida PSC review for consumer fairness.

✅ Funds Debby and Helene restoration, materials, and crews

✅ Reviewed by Florida PSC for consumer protection and fairness

✅ Raises questions on grid resilience, transparency, and renewables

In the aftermath of recent hurricanes, Florida Power & Light (FPL) is under scrutiny as it implements a rate surcharge, alongside proposed rate hikes that span multiple years, to help cover the costs of restoration and recovery efforts. The surcharges, attributed to Hurricanes Debby and Helene, have stirred significant debate among consumers and state regulators, highlighting the ongoing challenges of hurricane preparedness and response in the Sunshine State.

Hurricanes are a regular threat in Florida, and FPL, as the state's largest utility provider, plays a critical role in restoring power and services after such events. However, the financial implications of these natural disasters often leave residents questioning the fairness and necessity of additional charges on their monthly bills. The newly proposed surcharge, which is expected to affect millions of customers, has ignited discussions about the adequacy of the company’s infrastructure investments and its responsibility in disaster recovery.

FPL’s decision to implement a surcharge comes as the company faces rising operational costs due to extensive damage caused by the hurricanes. Restoration efforts are not only labor-intensive but also require significant investment in materials and equipment to restore power swiftly and efficiently. With the added pressures of increased demand for electricity during peak hurricane seasons, utilities like FPL must navigate complex financial landscapes, similar to Snohomish PUD's weather-related rate hikes seen in other regions, while ensuring reliable service.

Consumer advocacy groups have raised concerns over the timing and justification for the surcharge. Many argue that frequent rate increases following natural disasters can strain already financially burdened households, echoing pandemic-related shutoff concerns raised during COVID that heightened energy insecurity. Florida residents are already facing inflationary pressures and rising living costs, making additional surcharges particularly difficult for many to absorb. Critics assert that utility companies should prioritize transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to costs incurred during emergencies.

The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), which regulates utility rates and services, even as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills elsewhere, is tasked with reviewing the surcharge proposal. The commission’s role is crucial in determining whether the surcharge is justified and in line with the interests of consumers. As part of this process, stakeholders—including FPL, consumer advocacy groups, and the general public—will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns. This input is essential in ensuring that the commission makes an informed decision that balances the utility’s financial needs with consumer protection.

In recent years, FPL has invested heavily in strengthening its infrastructure to better withstand hurricane impacts. These investments include hardening power lines, enhancing grid resilience, and implementing advanced technologies for quicker recovery, with public outage prevention tips also promoted to enhance preparedness. However, as storms become increasingly severe due to climate change, the question arises: are these measures sufficient? Critics argue that more proactive measures are needed to mitigate the impacts of future storms and reduce the reliance on post-disaster rate increases.

Additionally, the conversation around climate resilience is becoming increasingly prominent in discussions about energy policy in Florida. As extreme weather events grow more common, utilities are under pressure to innovate and adapt their systems. Some experts suggest that FPL and other utilities should explore alternative strategies, such as investing in decentralized energy resources like solar and battery storage, even as Florida declined federal solar incentives that could accelerate adoption, which could provide more reliable service during outages and reduce the overall strain on the grid.

The issue of rate surcharges also highlights a broader conversation about the energy landscape in Florida. With a growing emphasis on renewable energy and sustainability, consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental impacts of their energy choices, and some recall a one-time Gulf Power bill decrease as an example of short-term relief. This shift in consumer awareness may push utilities like FPL to reevaluate their business models and explore more sustainable practices that align with the public’s evolving expectations.

As FPL navigates the complexities of hurricane recovery and financial sustainability, the impending surcharge serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by utility providers in a climate-volatile world. While the need for recovery funding is undeniable, the manner in which it is implemented and communicated will be crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring fair treatment of consumers. As discussions unfold in the coming weeks, all eyes will be on the PSC’s decision and FPL’s approach to balancing recovery efforts with consumer affordability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Electricity Demand Decoupling signals GDP growth without higher load, driven by energy efficiency, LED adoption, services-led output, and rising renewables integration with the grid, plus EV charging and battery storage supporting decarbonization.

Key Points

GDP grows as electricity use stays flat, driven by efficiency, renewables, and a shift toward services and output.

✅ LEDs and codes cut residential and commercial load intensity.

✅ Wind, solar, and gas gain share as coal and nuclear struggle.

✅ EVs and storage can grow load and enable grid decarbonization.

By Justin Fox

Economic growth picked up a little in the U.S. in 2017. But electricity use fell, with electricity sales projections continuing to decline, according to data released recently by the Energy Information Administration. It's now been basically flat for more than a decade:

Measured on a per-capita basis, electricity use is in clear decline, and is already back to the levels of the mid-1990s.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

*Includes small-scale solar generation from 2014 onward

I constructed these charts to go all the way back to 1949 in part because I can (that's how far back the EIA data series goes) but also because it makes clear what a momentous change this is. Electricity use rose and rose and rose and then ... it didn't anymore.

Slower economic growth since 2007 has been part of the reason, but the 2017 numbers make clear that higher gross domestic product no longer necessarily requires more electricity, although the Iron Law of Climate is often cited to suggest rising energy use with economic growth. I wrote a column last year about this big shift, and there's not a whole lot new to say about what's causing it: mainly increased energy efficiency (driven to a remarkable extent by the rise of LED light bulbs), and the continuing migration of economic activity away from making tangible things and toward providing services and virtual products such as games and binge-watchable TV series (that are themselves consumed on ever-more-energy-efficient electronic devices).

What's worth going over, though, is what this means for those in the business of generating electricity. The Donald Trump administration has made saving coal-fired electric plants a big priority; the struggles of nuclear power plants have sparked concern from multiple quarters. Meanwhile, U.S. natural gas production has grown by more than 40 percent since 2007, thanks to hydraulic fracturing and other new drilling techniques, while wind and solar generation keep making big gains in cost and market share. And this is all happening within the context of a no-growth electricity market.

In China, a mystery in China's electricity data has complicated global comparisons.

Here are the five main sources of electric power in the U.S.:

The big story over the past decade has been coal and natural gas trading places as the top fuel for electricity generation. Over the past year and a half coal regained some of that lost ground as natural gas prices rose from the lows of early 2016. But with overall electricity use flat and production from wind and solar on the rise, that hasn't translated into big increases in coal generation overall.

Oh, and about solar. It's only a major factor in a few states (California especially), so it doesn't make the top five. But it's definitely on the rise.

What happens next? For power generators, the best bet for breaking out of the current no-growth pattern is to electrify more of the U.S. economy, especially transportation. A big part of the attraction of electric cars and trucks for policy-makers and others is their potential to be emissions-free. But they're only really emissions-free if the electricity used to charge them is generated in an emissions-free manner -- creating a pretty strong business case for continuing "decarbonization" of the electric industry. It's conceivable that electric car batteries could even assist in that decarbonization by storing the intermittent power generated by wind and solar and delivering it back onto the grid when needed.

I don't know exactly how all this will play out. Nobody does. But the business of generating electricity isn't going back to its pre-2008 normal. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Sault Ste. Marie Smart Grid Investment upgrades PUC Distribution infrastructure with federal funding, clean energy tech, outage reduction, customer insights, and reliability gains, creating 140 jobs and attracting industry to a resilient, efficient grid.

Key Points

A federally funded PUC Distribution project to modernize the citywide grid, cut outages, boost efficiency, and create jobs.

✅ $11.8M federal funding to PUC Distribution

✅ Citywide smart grid cuts outages and energy loss

✅ 140 jobs; attracts clean tech and industry

PUC Distribution Inc. in Sault Ste. Marie is receiving $11.8 million from the federal government to invest in infrastructure, as utilities nationwide have faced pandemic-related losses that underscore the need for resilient systems.

The MP for the riding, Terry Sheehan, made the announcement on Monday.

The money will go to the utility's smart grid project, where technologies like a centralized SCADA system can enhance situational awareness and control.

"This smart grid project offers a glimpse into our clean energy future and represents a new wave of economic activity for the region," Sheehan said.

"Along with job creation, new industries will be attracted to a modern grid, supported by stable electricity pricing that helps competitiveness, all while helping the environment."

His office says the investment will allow the utility to reduce outages, provide more information to customers to help make smarter electricity use choices, aligned with Ontario's energy-efficiency programs that encourage conservation, and offer more services.

"This is an innovative project that makes Sault Ste. Marie a leader," mayor Christian Provenzano said.

"We will be the first city in our country to implement a community-wide smart grid. Once it is complete, the smart grid will make our energy infrastructure more reliable, reduce energy loss and lead to a more innovative economy for our community."

The project will also create 140 new jobs.

"As a community-focused utility, we are always looking for innovative ways to help our customers save money amid concerns about hydro disconnections during winter, and reduce their carbon footprint," Rob Brewster, president and CEO of PUC Distribution said.

"The investment the government has made in our community will not only help modernize our city's electrical distribution system [as] once the project is complete, Sault Ste. Marie will have access to an electricity grid that can handle the growing demands of a city in the 21st century."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News