Poor hit back at rich over carbon emissions

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hinkley Point C Reactor Installation signals UK energy security, nuclear power expansion, and low-carbon baseload, featuring EPR technology in Somerset to cut emissions, support net-zero goals, and deliver reliable electricity for homes and businesses.

Key Points

First EPR unit fitted at Hinkley Point C, boosting low-carbon baseload, grid reliability, and UK energy security.

✅ Generates 3.2 GW across two EPRs for 7% of UK electricity.

✅ Provides low-carbon baseload to complement wind and solar.

✅ Creates jobs and strengthens supply chains during construction.

The United Kingdom has made a significant stride toward securing its energy future with the installation of the first reactor at its newest nuclear power station. This development marks an important milestone in the nation’s efforts to combat climate change, reduce carbon emissions, and ensure a stable and sustainable energy supply. As the world moves towards greener alternatives to fossil fuels, nuclear power remains a key part of the UK's green industrial revolution and low-carbon energy strategy.

The new power station, located at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, is set to be one of the most advanced nuclear facilities in the country. The installation of its reactor represents a crucial step in the construction of the plant, with earlier milestones like the reactor roof lifted into place underscoring steady progress, which is expected to provide reliable, low-carbon electricity for millions of homes and businesses across the UK. The completion of the first reactor is seen as a pivotal moment in the journey to bring the station online, with the second reactor expected to follow shortly after.

A Historic Milestone

Hinkley Point C will be the UK’s first nuclear power station built in over two decades. The plant, once fully operational, will play a key role in the country's energy transition. The reactors at Hinkley Point C are designed to be state-of-the-art, using advanced technology that is both safer and more efficient than older nuclear reactors. Each of the two reactors will have the capacity to generate 1.6 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power approximately six million homes. Together, they will contribute about 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, providing a steady, reliable source of energy even during periods of high demand.

The installation of the first reactor at Hinkley Point C is not just a technical achievement; it is also symbolic of the UK’s commitment to energy security and its goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, a target that industry leaders say multiple new stations will be needed to meet effectively. Nuclear power is a crucial part of this equation, as it provides a stable, baseload source of energy that does not rely on weather conditions, unlike wind or solar power.

Boosting the UK’s Energy Capacity

The addition of Hinkley Point C to the UK’s energy infrastructure is expected to significantly boost the country’s energy capacity and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The UK government has been focused on increasing the share of renewable energy in its mix, and nuclear power is seen as an essential complement to intermittent renewable sources, especially as wind and solar have surpassed nuclear in generation at times. Nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon, reliable energy source that can fill the gaps when renewable generation is insufficient, such as on cloudy or calm days when solar and wind energy output may be low.

With the aging of the UK’s existing nuclear fleet and the gradual phase-out of coal-fired power plants, Hinkley Point C will help ensure that the country does not face an energy shortage as it transitions to cleaner energy sources. The plant will help to bridge the gap between the current energy infrastructure and the future, enabling the UK to phase out coal while maintaining a steady, low-carbon energy supply.

Safety and Technological Innovation

The reactors at Hinkley Point C are being constructed using the latest in nuclear technology. They are based on the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) design, which is known for its enhanced safety features and efficiency, and has been deployed in projects within China's nuclear program as well, making it a proven platform. These reactors are designed to withstand extreme conditions, including earthquakes and flooding, making them highly resilient. Additionally, the EPR technology ensures that the reactors have a low environmental impact, producing minimal waste and offering the potential for increased sustainability compared to older reactor designs.

One of the key innovations in the Hinkley Point C reactors is their advanced cooling system, which is designed to be more efficient and environmentally friendly than previous generations. This system ensures that the reactors operate at optimal temperatures while minimizing the environmental footprint of the plant.

Economic and Job Creation Benefits

The construction of Hinkley Point C has already provided a significant boost to the local economy. Thousands of jobs have been created, not only in the construction phase but also in the ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility. The plant is expected to create more than 25,000 jobs during its construction and around 900 permanent jobs once it is operational.

The project is also expected to have a positive impact on the wider UK economy. As a major infrastructure project, Hinkley Point C will provide long-term economic benefits, including boosting supply chains and providing opportunities for local businesses.

Challenges and the Road Ahead

Despite the progress, the construction of Hinkley Point C has not been without its challenges. The project has faced delays and cost overruns, with setbacks at Hinkley Point C documented by industry observers, and the total estimated cost now standing at around £22 billion. However, the successful installation of the first reactor is a step toward overcoming these hurdles and completing the project on schedule.

Looking ahead, Hinkley Point C’s successful operation could pave the way for future nuclear developments in the UK, including next-gen nuclear designs that aim to be smaller, cheaper, and safer. As the world grapples with the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy may play an even more critical role in ensuring a clean, reliable energy future.

The installation of the first reactor at Hinkley Point C marks a crucial moment in the UK’s energy journey. As the country seeks to meet its carbon reduction targets and bolster its energy security, the new nuclear power station will be a cornerstone of its efforts. With its advanced technology, safety features, and potential to provide low-carbon energy for decades to come, Hinkley Point C offers a glimpse into the future of energy production in the UK and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

PG&E Wind Shutdown and Renewable Reliability examines PSPS strategy, wildfire risk, transmission line exposure, wind turbine cut-out speeds, grid stability, and California's energy mix amid historic high-wind events and supply constraints across service areas.

Key Points

An overview of PG&E's PSPS decisions, wildfire mitigation, and how wind cut-out limits influence grid reliability.

✅ Wind turbines reach cut-out near 55 mph, reducing generation.

✅ PSPS mitigates ignition from damaged transmission infrastructure.

✅ Baseload diversity improves resilience during high-wind events.

According to the official, widely reported story, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) initiated power shutoffs across substantial portions of its electric transmission system in northern California as a precautionary measure.

Citing high wind speeds they described as “historic,” the utility claims that if it didn’t turn off the grid, wind-caused damage to its infrastructure could start more wildfires.

Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps. This tale presumes that the folks who designed and maintain PG&E’s transmission system are unaware of or ignored the need to design it to withstand severe weather events, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) allowed the utility to do so.

Ignorance and incompetence happens, to be sure, but there’s much about this story that doesn’t smell right—and it’s disappointing that most journalists and elected officials are apparently accepting it without question.

Take, for example, this statement from a Fox News story about the Kincade Fires: “A PG&E meteorologist said it’s ‘likely that many trees will fall, branches will break,’ which could damage utility infrastructure and start a fire.”

Did you ever notice how utilities cut wide swaths of trees away when transmission lines pass through forests? There’s a reason for that: When trees fall and branches break, the grid can still function, and even as the electric rhythms of New York City shifted during COVID-19, operators planned for variability.

So, if badly designed and poorly maintained infrastructure isn’t the reason PG&E cut power to millions of Californians, what might have prompted them to do so? Could it be that PG&E’s heavy reliance on renewable energy means they don’t have the power to send when a “historic” weather event occurs, especially as policymakers weigh the postponed closure of three power plants elsewhere in California?

Wind Speed Limits

The two most popular forms of renewable energy come with operating limitations, which is why some energy leaders urge us to keep electricity options open when planning the grid. With solar power, the constraint is obvious: the availability of sunlight. One doesn’t generate solar power at night and energy generation drops off with increasing degrees of cloud cover during the day.

The main operating constraint of wind power is, of course, wind speed, and even in markets undergoing 'transformative change' in wind generation, operators adhere to these technical limits. At the low end of the scale, you need about a 6 or 7 miles-per-hour wind to get a turbine moving. This is called the “cut-in speed.” To generate maximum power, about a 30 mph wind is typically required. But, if the wind speed is too high, the wind turbine will shut down. This is called the “cut-out speed,” and it’s about 55 miles per hour for most modern wind turbines.

It may seem odd that wind turbines have a cut-out speed, but there’s a very good reason for it. Each wind turbine rotor is connected to an electric generator housed in the turbine nacelle. The connection is made through a gearbox that is sized to turn the generator at the precise speed required to produce 60 Hertz AC power.

The blades of the wind turbine are airfoils, just like the wings of an airplane. Adjusting the pitch (angle) of the blades allows the rotor to maintain constant speed, which, in turn, allows the generator to maintain the constant speed it needs to safely deliver power to the grid. However, there’s a limit to blade pitch adjustment. When the wind is blowing so hard that pitch adjustment is no longer possible, the turbine shuts down. That’s the cut-out speed.

Now consider how California’s power generation profile has changed. According to Energy Information Administration data, the state generated 74.3 percent of its electricity from traditional sources—fossil fuels and nuclear, amid debates over whether to classify nuclear as renewable—in 2001. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass-generated power accounted for most of the remaining 25.7 percent, with wind and solar providing only 1.98 percent of the total.

By 2018, the state’s renewable portfolio had jumped to 43.8 percent of total generation, with clean power increasing and wind and solar now accounting for 17.9 percent of total generation. That’s a lot of power to depend on from inherently unreliable sources. Thus, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to learn that PG&E didn’t stop delivering power out of fear of starting fires, but because it knew it wouldn’t have power to deliver once high winds shut down all those wind turbines

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Enegix Base One Green Hydrogen Plant will produce renewable hydrogen via electrolysis in Ceara, Brazil, leveraging 3.4 GW baseload renewables, offshore wind, and hydro to scale clean energy, storage, and export logistics.

Key Points

A $5.4bn Ceara, Brazil project to produce 600m kg of green hydrogen annually using 3.4 GW of baseload renewables.

✅ 3.4 GW baseload from hydro and offshore wind pipelines

✅ Targets 600m kg green hydrogen per year via electrolysis

✅ Focus on storage, transport, and export supply chains

In March, Enegix Energy announced some of the most ambitious hydrogen plans the world has ever seen. The company signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the government of the Brazilian state of Ceará to build the world’s largest green hydrogen plant in the state on the country’s north-eastern coast, and the figures are staggering.

The Base One facility will produce more than 600 million kilograms of green hydrogen annually from 3.4GW of baseload renewable energy, and receive $5.4bn in investment to get the project off the ground and producing within four years.

Green hydrogen, hydrogen produced by electrolysis that is powered by renewables, has significant potential as a clean energy source. Already seeing increased usage in the transport sector, the power source boasts the energy efficiency and the environmental viability to be a cornerstone of the world’s energy mix.

Yet practical challenges have often derailed large-scale green hydrogen projects, from the inherent obstacle of requiring separate renewable power facilities to the logistical and technological challenges of storing and transporting hydrogen. Could vast investment, clever planning, and supportive governments and programs like the DOE’s hydrogen hubs initiative help Enegix to deliver on green hydrogen’s oft-touted potential?

Brazilian billions
The Base One project is exceptional not only for its huge scale, but the timing of its construction, with demand for hydrogen set to increase dramatically over the next few decades. Figures from Wood Mackenzie suggest that hydrogen could account for 1.4 billion tonnes of energy demand by 2050, one-tenth of the world’s supply, with green hydrogen set to be the majority of this figure.

Yet considering that, prior to the announcement of the Enegix project, global green hydrogen capacity was just 94MW, advances in offshore green hydrogen and the development of a project of this size and scope could scale up the role of green hydrogen by orders of magnitude.

“We really need to [advance clean energy] without any emissions on a completely clean, carbon neutral and net-zero framework, and so we needed access to a large amount of green energy projects,” explains Wesley Cooke, founder and CEO of Enegix, a goal aligned with analyses that zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is possible, discussing the motivation behind the vast project.

With these ambitious goals in mind, the company needed to find a region with a particular combination of political will and environmental traits to enable such a project to take off.

“When we looked at all of these key things: pipeline for renewables, access to water, cost of renewables, and appetite for renewables, Brazil really stood out to us,” Cooke continues. “The state of Ceará, that we’ve got an MOU with the government in at the moment, ticks all of these boxes.”

Ceará’s own clean energy plans align with Enegix’s, at least in terms of their ambition and desire for short-term development. Last October, the state announced that it plans to add 5GW of new offshore wind capacity in the next five years. With BI Energia alone providing $2.5bn in investment for its 1.2GW Camocim wind facility, there is significant financial muscle behind these lofty ambitions.

“One thing I should add is that Brazil is very blessed when it comes to baseload renewables,” says Cooke. “They have an incredibly high percentage of their country-wide energy that comes from renewable sources and a lot of this is in part due to the vast hydro schemes that they have for hydro dams. Not a lot of countries have that, and specifically when you’re trying to produce hydrogen, having access to vast amounts of renewables [is vital].”

Changing perceptions and tackling challenges
This combination of vast investment and integration with the existing renewable power infrastructure of Ceará could have cultural impacts too. The combination of state support for and private investment in clean energy offsets many of the narratives emerging from Brazil concerning its energy policies and environmental protections, even as debates over clean energy's trade-offs persist in Brazil and beyond, from the infamous Brumadinho disaster to widespread allegations of illegal deforestation and gold mining.

“I can’t speak for the whole of Brazil, but if we look at Ceará specifically, and even from what we’ve seen from a federal government standpoint, they have been talking about a hydrogen roadmap for Brazil for quite some time now,” says Cooke, highlighting the state’s long-standing support for green hydrogen. “I think we came in at the perfect time with a very solid plan for what we wanted to do, [and] we’ve had nothing but great cooperation, and even further than just cooperation, excitement around the MOU.”

This narrative shift could help overcome one of the key challenges facing many hydrogen projects, the idea that its practical difficulties render it fundamentally unsuitable for baseload power generation. By establishing a large-scale green hydrogen facility in a country that has recently struggled to present itself as one that is invested in renewables, the Base One facility could be the ultimate proof that such clean hydrogen projects are viable.

Nevertheless, practical challenges remain, as is the case with any energy project of this scale. Cooke mentions a number of solutions to two of the obstacles facing hydrogen production around the world: renewable energy storage and transportation of the material.

“We were looking at compressed hydrogen via specialised tankers [and] we were looking at liquefied hydrogen, [as] you have to get liquefied hydrogen very cool to around -253°, and you can use 30% to 40% of your total energy that you started with just to get it down to that temperature,” Cooke explains.

“The other aspect is that if you’re transporting this internationally, you really have to think about the supply chain. If you land in a country like Indonesia, that’s wonderful, but how do you get it from Indonesia to the customers that need it? What is the supply chain? What does that look like? Does it exist today?”

The future of green hydrogen
These practical challenges present something of a chicken and egg problem for the future of green hydrogen: considerable up-front investment is required for functions such as storage and transport, but the difficulties of these functions can scare off investors and make such investments uncommon.

Yet with the world’s environmental situation increasingly dire, more dramatic, and indeed risky, moves are needed to alter its energy mix, and Enegix is one company taking responsibility and accepting these risks.

“We need to have the renewables to match the dirty fuel types,” Cooke says. “This [investment] will really come from the decisions that are being made right now by large-scale companies, multi-billion-euro-per-year revenue companies, committing to building out large scale factories in Europe and Asia, to support PEM [hydrolysis].”

This idea of large-scale green hydrogen is also highly ambitious, considering the current state of the energy source. The International Renewable Energy Agency reports that around 95% of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, so hydrogen has a long ways to go to clean up its own carbon footprint before going on to displace fossil fuel-driven industries.

Yet this displacement is exactly what Enegix is targeting. Cooke notes that the ultimate goal of Enegix is not simply to increase hydrogen production for use in a single industry, such as clean vehicles. Instead, the idea is to develop green hydrogen infrastructure to the point where it can replace coal and oil as a source of baseload power, leapfrogging other renewables to form the bedrock of the world’s future energy mix.

“The problem with [renewable] baseload is that they’re intermittent; the wind’s not always blowing and the sun’s not always shining and batteries are still very expensive, although that is changing. When you put those projects together and look at the levelised cost of energy, this creates a chasm, really, for baseload.

“And for us, this is really where we believe that hydrogen needs to be thought of in more detail and this is what we’re really evangelising about at the moment.”

A more hydrogen-reliant energy mix could also bring social benefits, with Cooke suggesting that the same traits that make hydrogen unwieldy in countries with established energy infrastructures could make hydrogen more practically viable in other parts of the world.

“When you look at emerging markets and developing markets at the moment, the power infrastructure in some cases can be quite messy,” Cooke says. “You’ve got the potential for either paying for the power or extending your transmission grid, but rarely being able to do both of those.

“I think being able to do that last mile piece, utilising liquid organic hydrogen carrier as an energy vector that’s very cost-effective, very scalable, non-toxic, and non-flammable; [you can] get that power where you need it.

“We believe hydrogen has the potential to be very cost-effective at scale, supporting a vision of cheap, abundant electricity over time, but also very modular and usable in many different use cases.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Global Adjustment Deferral offers COVID-19 electricity bill relief to industrial and commercial consumers not on the RPP, aligning GA to March levels for Class A and Class B manufacturers to improve cash flow.

Key Points

A temporary GA deferral easing electricity costs for Ontario industrial and commercial users not on the RPP.

✅ Sets Class B GA at $115/MWh; Class A gets equal percentage cut.

✅ Applies April-June 2020; automatic bill adjustments and credits.

✅ Deferred charges repaid over 12 months starting January 2021.

Manufacturers welcome the Government of Ontario's decision to defer a portion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges as part of support for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan.

"Manufacturers are pleased the government listened to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) member recommendations and is taking action to reduce Ontario electricity bills immediately," said Dennis Darby, President & CEO of CME.

"The majority of manufacturers have identified cash flow as their top concern during the crisis, "added Darby. "The GA system would have caused a nearly $2 billion cost surge to Ontario manufacturers this year. This new initiative by the government is on top of the billions in support already provided to help manufacturers weather this unprecedented storm, while other provinces accelerate British Columbia's clean energy shift to drive long-term competitiveness. All these measures are a great start in helping businesses of all sizes stay afloat during the crisis and, keeping Ontarians employed."

"We call on the Ontario government to continue to consider the impact of electricity costs on the manufacturing sector, even after the COVID-19 crisis is resolved," stated Darby. "High prices are putting Ontario manufacturers at a significant competitive disadvantage and, discourages investments." A recent report from London Economics International (LEI) found that when compared to jurisdictions with similar manufacturing industries, Ontario's electricity prices can be up to 75% more expensive, underscoring the importance of planning for Toronto's growing electricity needs to maintain affordability.

To provide companies with temporary immediate relief on their electricity bills, the Ontario government is deferring a portion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP), starting from April 2020, as some regions saw reduced electricity demand from widespread remote work during the pandemic. The GA rate for smaller industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class B) has been set at $115 per megawatt-hour, which is roughly in line with the March 2020 value. Large industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class A) will receive the same percentage reduction in GA charges as Class B consumers.

The Ontario government intends to keep this relief in place through the end of June 2020, alongside investments like smart grid technology in Sault Ste. Marie to support reliability, subject to necessary extensions and approvals to implement this initiative.

Industrial and commercial electricity consumers will automatically see this relief reflected on their bills. Consumers who have already received their April bill should see an adjustment on a future bill.

Related initiatives include developing cyber standards for electricity sector IoT devices to strengthen system security.

The government intends to bring forward subsequent amendments that would, if approved, recover the deferred GA charges (excluding interest) from industrial and commercial electricity consumers, as Toronto prepares for a surge in electricity demand amid continued growth, over a 12-month period beginning in January 2021.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News