TVA Rates and Renewable Energy Scrutiny spotlights electricity rates, distributed energy resources, solar and wind deployment, natural gas plans, grid access charges, energy efficiency cuts, and House oversight of lobbying, FERC inquiries, and least-cost planning.
Key Points
A congressional probe into TVA pricing and practices affecting renewables, energy efficiency, and climate goals.
✅ House panel probes TVA rates, DER and solar policies.
✅ Inquiry on lobbying, hidden fees; FERC scrutiny.
The Tennessee Valley Authority is facing federal scrutiny about its electricity rates and climate action, amid ongoing debates over network profits in other markets.
Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce are “requesting information” from TVA about its ratepayer bills and “out of concern” that TVA is interfering with the deployment of renewable and distributed energy resources, even as companies such as Tesla explore electricity retail to expand customer options.
“The Committee is concerned that TVA’s business practices are inconsistent with these statutory requirements to the disadvantage of TVA’s ratepayers and the environment,” the committee said in a letter to TVA CEO Jeffrey Lyash.
The four committee members — U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Paul Tonko (D-NY) — suggested that Tennessee Valley residents pay too much for electricity despite TVA’s relatively low rates, even as regulators have, in other cases, scrutinized mergers like the Hydro One-Avista deal to safeguard ratepayers, underscoring similar concerns. In 2020, Tennessee residents had electric bills higher than the national average, while low-income residents in Memphis have historically faced one of the highest energy burdens in the U.S.
In 2018, TVA reduced its wholesale rate while adding a grid access charge on local power companies—and interfered with the adoption of solar energy. Internal TVA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Energy and Policy Institute revealed that TVA permitted local power companies to impose new fees on distributed solar generation to “lessen the potential decrease in TVA load that may occur through the adoption of [behind the meter] generation.”
Additionally, the committee said TVA is not prioritizing energy conservation and efficiency or “least-cost planning” that includes renewables, as seen in oversight such as the OEB's Hydro One rates decision emphasizing cost allocation. TVA reduced its energy efficiency programs by nearly two-thirds between 2014 and 2018 and cut its energy efficiency customer incentive programs.
At this time, TVA has not aligned its long-term planning with the Biden administration’s goal to achieve a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. TVA’s generation mix, which is roughly 60% carbon-free, comprises 39% nuclear, 19% coal, 26% natural gas, 11% hydro, 3% wind and solar, and 1% energy efficiency programs, according to TVA.
The committee is “greatly concerned that TVA has invested comparatively little to date in deploying solar and wind energy, while at the same time considering investments in new natural gas generation.”
TVA has announced plans to shutter the Kingston and Cumberland coal plants and is evaluating whether to replace this generation with natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, while debates over grid privatization raise questions about consumer benefits. TVA’s coal and natural gas plants represent most of the largest sources of greenhouses emissions in Tennessee.
TVA responded with a statement without directly addressing the committee’s concerns. TVA said its “developing and implementing emerging technologies to drive toward net-zero emissions by 2050.”
The final question that the House committee posed is whether TVA is funding any political activity. In 2019, the committee questioned TVA about its membership to the now-disbanded Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition that was involved in over 200 lawsuits that primarily fought Clear Air Act regulations.
TVA revealed that it had contributed $7.3 million to the industry lobbying group since 2001. Since TVA doesn’t have shareholders, customers paid for UARG membership fees, echoing findings that deferred utility costs burden customers in other jurisdictions. An Office of the Inspector General investigation couldn’t prove whether TVA’s contributions directly funded litigation because UARG didn’t have a line-by-line accounting of what they did with TVA’s dollars.
The congressional committee questioned whether TVA is still paying for lobbying or litigation that opposes “public health and welfare regulations.”
This last question follows a recent trend of questioning utilities about “hidden fees.” In December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry to examine how bills from investor-owned utilities might contain fees that fund political activity, and regulators have penalized firms like NT Power over customer notice practices, highlighting consumer protection. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition to protect electric and gas customers of investor-owned utilities from paying these fees, which may be used for lobbying, campaign-related donations and litigation.
Toronto Hydro Scam Warning urges customers to spot phishing emails, fraudulent texts, fake bills, and door-to-door threats demanding bitcoin or prepaid cards, with disconnection threats; report scams to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.
Key Points
Advisory on phishing, fake bills, and payment scams posing as Toronto Hydro, with steps to avoid fraud and report.
✅ Hang up suspicious calls; never pay via bitcoin or prepaid cards.
✅ Do not click links in emails or texts; compare bills and account numbers.
✅ Report fraud to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501.
Toronto Hydro has sent out a notice that criminals posing as Toronto Hydro are sending out fraudulent texts, letters and emails, similar to a recent BC Hydro scam reported in British Columbia.
The warning comes in a tweet, along with suggestions on how to protect yourself from fraud, especially as policy debates like an NDP public hydro plan can generate confusing messages.
According to Toronto Hydro, fraudsters are contacting people by phone, text, email, fake electricity bills, and even travelling door-to-door.
They threaten to disconnect the power unless an immediate payment is made, even though legitimate utilities must follow proper disconnection notices processes. The website states that in some cases, criminals request payment via pre-paid credit card or bitcoin.
It’s written on the website that Toronto Hydro does not accept these methods of payment, and they do not threaten to immediately disconnect power, a reminder that stories about power theft abroad are not a model for local billing.
If you suspect you are being targeted, you should immediately hang up any suspicious phone calls. Don’t click on any links in emails or texts asking you to accept electronic transfers, as scammers may impersonate well-known utilities during high-profile news such as Hydro One profit changes to appear credible.
Avoid sharing any personal information over the phone or in-person, and do not make any payments related to Smart Meter Deposits, as this fee does not exist and rate-setting is overseen by the Ontario Energy Board in Ontario.
And remember to always compare bills to previous ones, including the amount and account number, since major accounting decisions like a BC Hydro deferral report can fuel confusing narratives.
To report fraudulent activity, please contact: Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre at 1-888-495-8501; quote file number 844396
Wind And Solar Energy Growth is reshaping the global power mix, accelerating grid decarbonization as coal declines; boosted by pandemic demand drops, renewables now supply near 10% of electricity, advancing climate targets toward net-zero trajectories.
Key Points
It is the rise in wind and solar's share of electricity, driving decarbonization and displacing coal globally.
✅ Share doubled in five years across 83% of global electricity
✅ Coal's share fell; renewables neared 10% in H1 2020
✅ Growth still insufficient for 1.5 C; needs ~13% coal cuts yearly
Wind and solar energy doubled its share of the global power mix over the last five years, with renewable power records underscoring the trend, moving the world closer to a path that would limit the worst effects of global warming.
The sources of renewable energy made up nearly 10% of power in most parts of the world in the first half of this year, according to analysis from U.K. environmental group Ember, while globally over 30% of electricity is renewable in broader assessments.
That decarbonization of the power grid was boosted this year as shutdowns to contain the coronavirus reduced demand overall, leaving renewables to pick up the slack.
Ember analyzed generation in 48 countries that represent 83% of global electricity. The data showed wind and solar power increased 14% in the first half of 2020 compared with the same period last year while global demand fell 3% because of the impact of the coronavirus.
At the same time that wind turbines and solar panels have proliferated, coal’s share of the mix has fallen around the world. In some, mainly western European countries, where renewables surpassed fossil fuels, coal has been all but eliminated from electricity generation.
China relied on the dirtiest fossil fuel for 68% of its power five years ago, and solar PV growth in China has accelerated since then. That share dipped to 62% this year and renewables made up 10% of all electricity generated.
Still, the growth of renewables may not be going fast enough for the world to hit its climate goals, even as the U.S. is projected to have one-fourth of electricity from renewables soon, and coal is still being burnt for power in many parts of the world.
Coal use needs to fall by about 79% by 2030 from last year’s levels - a fall of 13% every year throughout the decade to come, and in the U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, Ember said.
New installations of wind farms are set to hold more or less steady in the next five years, according to data from BloombergNEF on deployment trends. That will make it difficult to realize a sustained pace of doubling renewable power every five years.
“If your expectations are that we need to be on target for 1.5 degrees, clearly we’re not going fast enough,” said Dave Jones, an analyst at Ember. “We’re not on a trajectory where we’re reducing coal emissions fast enough.”
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Ontario Gas Plant Expansion aims to boost grid reliability as nuclear refurbishments proceed, using natural gas to meet electricity demand, despite critics urging renewables, energy storage, and efficiency to reduce carbon emissions, protecting investment growth.
Key Points
Ontario plan to expand gas plants for reliability during nuclear outages, sparking debate on emissions and clean options.
✅ IESO data: gas share rose from 4% (2017) to 10.4% (2022).
✅ Government cites nuclear refurbishments and demand growth.
✅ Critics propose storage, wind, solar, and efficiency.
The Ontario government is preparing to expand gas-fired power plants in Ontario; a move critics say will make the province's electricity system dirtier and could eventually leave taxpayers on the hook.
The province is currently soliciting bids for additional gas-fired electricity generation, which means new gas plants get built, or existing gas plants get expanded.
It's poised to be Ontario's biggest increase in the gas-fired power supply in more than a decade since the previous Liberal government scrapped two gas plants, in Mississauga and Oakville, at a cost the auditor general pegged at around $1 billion.
Doug Ford's energy minister, Todd Smith, says Ontario needs gas plants now to help meet an expected surge in demand for electricity as the province faces a supply shortfall in the coming years and to provide power while some units of the province's nuclear stations are down for refurbishment.
"It's really important to have natural gas as an insurance policy to keep the lights on and provide the reliability that we need," Smith said in an interview.
"We need natural gas for the short term, especially to get us through these refurbishments."
The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek clean power that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible.
The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek a power supply that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible.
Increasing the amount of gas-fired generation in the electricity system puts Ontario's ability to attract such investments at risk as it complicates balancing demand and emissions across the grid, says Evan Pivnick, program manager with Clean Energy Canada, a think tank.
"Building new natural gas (power plants) in Ontario today should be seen as an absolute last resort for meeting our energy needs," said Pivnick in an interview.
Ontario's electricity system has among the lowest rates of CO2 emissions in North America, with roughly half of the annual supply provided by nuclear power, one-quarter from hydro dams, and one-tenth from wind turbines.
However, Ontario's gas plants have produced a growing amount of electricity in recent years, despite an early report exploring a gas halt by the minister, and that trend will continue if new gas plants are built.
In 2017, gas- and oil-fired generation provided just four percent of Ontario's electricity supply, according to figures from the provincial agency that manages the grid, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).
By 2022, that figure reached 10.4 percent.
Ontario doesn't need new gas plants to meet the electricity demand, says Bryan Purcell, vice president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund. This agency invests in low-carbon projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.
"We're quite concerned about where Ontario's electric grid is going," said Purcell. "Thankfully, there's still time to adjust course and look at other options."
According to Purcell and Pivnick, those options to avoid gas could include power storage (in which excess generated energy is stored for later use when electricity demand rises), wind and solar projects, or energy efficiency and conservation programs.
Extreme Heat and Rising Electricity Bills amplify energy costs as climate change drives air conditioning demand, stressing the power grid and energy affordability, with low income households facing outsized burdens during prolonged heat waves.
Key Points
Heat waves from climate change raise AC demand, driving up electricity costs and straining energy affordability.
✅ More AC use spikes electricity demand during heat waves
✅ Low income households face higher energy burden
✅ Grid reliability risks rise with peak cooling loads
Extreme heat waves are not only straining public health systems but also having a significant impact on household finances, particularly through rising electricity bills. According to a recent AP-NORC poll, a growing number of Americans are feeling the financial pinch as soaring temperatures drive up the cost of cooling their homes. This development underscores the broader implications of climate change and its effects on everyday life.
The AP-NORC poll highlights that a majority of Americans are experiencing increased electricity costs as a direct result of extreme heat. As temperatures climb, so does the demand for air conditioning and other cooling systems. This increased energy consumption is contributing to higher utility bills, which can put additional strain on household budgets.
Extreme heat waves have become more frequent and intense due to climate change, which has led to a greater reliance on air conditioning to maintain comfortable indoor environments. Air conditioners and fans work harder during heat waves, and wasteful air conditioning can add around $200 to summer bills, consuming more electricity and consequently driving up energy bills. For many households, particularly those with lower incomes, these increased costs can be a significant burden.
The poll reveals that the impact of rising electricity bills is widespread, affecting a diverse range of Americans. Households across different income levels and geographic regions are feeling the heat, though the extent of the financial strain can vary. Lower-income households are particularly vulnerable, as they often have less flexibility in their budgets to absorb higher utility costs. For these families, the choice between cooling their homes and other essential expenses can be a difficult one.
In addition to financial strain, the poll highlights concerns about energy affordability and access. As electricity bills rise, some Americans may face challenges in paying their bills, leading to potential utility shut-offs or the need to make difficult choices between cooling and other necessities. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that many utility companies do not offer sufficient assistance or relief programs to help low-income households manage their energy costs.
The increasing frequency of extreme heat events and the resulting spike in electricity consumption also have broader implications for the energy infrastructure. Higher demand for electricity can strain power grids, as seen when California narrowly avoided blackouts during extreme heat, potentially leading to outages or reduced reliability. Utilities and energy providers may need to invest in infrastructure upgrades and maintenance to ensure that the grid can handle the increased load during heat waves.
Climate change is a key driver of the rising temperatures that contribute to higher electricity bills. As global temperatures continue to rise, extreme heat events are expected to become more common and severe, and experts warn the US electric grid was not designed to withstand these impacts. This trend underscores the need for comprehensive strategies to address both the causes and consequences of climate change. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, and invest in renewable energy sources are critical components of a broader climate action plan.
Energy efficiency measures can play a significant role in mitigating the impact of extreme heat on electricity bills. Upgrading to more efficient cooling systems, improving home insulation, and adopting smart thermostats can help reduce energy consumption and lower utility costs. Additionally, utility companies and government programs can offer incentives and rebates, including ways to tap new funding that help encourage energy-saving practices and support households in managing their energy use.
The poll also suggests that there is a growing awareness among Americans about the connection between climate change and rising energy costs. Many people are becoming more informed about the ways in which extreme weather events and rising temperatures impact their daily lives. This increased awareness can drive demand for policy changes and support for initiatives aimed at addressing climate change and improving energy efficiency, with many willing to contribute income to climate efforts, about the connection between climate change and rising energy costs.
In response to the rising costs and the impact of extreme heat, there are calls for policy interventions and support programs to help manage energy affordability. Proposals include expanding assistance programs for low-income households, investing in infrastructure improvements, and promoting energy efficiency initiatives alongside steps to make electricity systems more resilient to climate risks. By addressing these issues, policymakers can help alleviate the financial burden on households and support a more resilient and sustainable energy system.
Debates over policy impacts on electricity prices continue; in Alberta, federal policies are blamed by some for higher rates, illustrating how regulation can affect affordability.
In conclusion, the AP-NORC poll highlights the growing financial impact of extreme heat on American households, with rising electricity bills being a significant concern for many. The increased demand for cooling during heat waves is straining household budgets and raising broader questions about energy affordability and infrastructure resilience. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including efforts to combat climate change, improve energy efficiency, and provide support for those most affected by rising energy costs. As extreme heat events become more common, finding solutions to manage their impact will be crucial for both individual households and the broader energy system.
Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.
Key Points
Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.
✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B
✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025
✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns
The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.
Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.
Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.
Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.
$10B more than initial estimate On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.
Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.
But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.
And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.
Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.
Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.
Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.
Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.
“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.
Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.
The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.
“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy.
There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.
A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.
Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.
Cost of cancelling the project The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.
That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.
A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation.
The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.
“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.
"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.
"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."
The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.
Arguments against Site C While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.
In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.
"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.
Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.
"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.
"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."
Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.
“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”
Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.
At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.
“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.
She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.
Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.
They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.
In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake."
According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.
Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.
The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement.
Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.
Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.
One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.
