UCP scraps electricity price cap, some will see $7 bill increase this month

US Power Grid Cyberattacks target utilities and nuclear plants, probing SCADA, ICS, and business networks at sites like Wolf Creek; suspected Russian actors, malware, and spear-phishing trigger DHS and FBI alerts on critical infrastructure resilience.

Key Points

Intrusions on energy networks probing ICS and SCADA, seeking persistence and elevating risks to critical infrastructure.

✅ Wolf Creek nuclear plant targeted; no operational systems breached

✅ Attackers leveraged stolen credentials, malware, and spear-phishing

✅ DHS and FBI issued alerts; utilities enhance cyber resilience

Hackers working for a foreign government recently breached at least a dozen US power plants, including the Wolf Creek nuclear facility in Kansas, according to current and former US officials, sparking concerns the attackers were searching for vulnerabilities in the electrical grid.

The rivals could be positioning themselves to eventually disrupt the nation’s power supply, warned the officials, who noted that a general alert, prompting a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid, was distributed to utilities a week ago. Adding to those concerns, hackers recently infiltrated an unidentified company that makes control systems for equipment used in the power industry, an attack that officials believe may be related.

The chief suspect is Russia, according to three people familiar with the continuing effort to eject the hackers from the computer networks. One of those networks belongs to an ageing nuclear generating facility known as Wolf Creek -- owned by Westar Energy Inc, Great Plains Energy Inc, and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc -- on a lake shore near Burlington, Kansas.

The possibility of a Russia connection is particularly worrying, former and current official s say, because Russian hackers have previously taken down parts of the electrical grid in Ukraine and appear to be testing increasingly advanced tools, including cyber weapons to disrupt power grids, to disrupt power supplies.

The hacks come as international tensions have flared over US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election, and amid U.S. government condemnation of Russian power-grid hacking in recent advisories. The US, which has several continuing investigations into Russia’s activities, is known to possess digital weapons capable of disrupting the electricity grids of rival nations.

“We don’t pay attention to such anonymous fakes,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, in response to a request to comment on alleged Russian involvement.

It was unclear whether President Donald Trump was planning to address the cyber attacks at his meeting on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In an earlier speech in Warsaw, Trump called out Russia’s “destabilising activities” and urged the country to join “the community of responsible nations.”

The Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation said they are aware of a potential intrusion in the energy sector. The alert issued to utilities cited activities by hackers since May.

“There is no indication of a threat to public safety, as any potential impact appears to be limited to administrative and business networks,” the government agencies said in a joint statement.

The Department of Energy also said the impact appears limited to administrative and business networks and said it was working with utilities and grid operators to enhance security and resilience.

“Regardless of whether malicious actors attempt to exploit business networks or operational systems, we take any reports of malicious cyber activity potentially targeting our nation’s energy infrastructure seriously and respond accordingly,” the department said in an emailed statement.

Representatives of the National Security Council, the Director of National Intelligence and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission declined to comment. While Bloomberg News was waiting for responses from the government, the New York Times reported that hacks were targeting nuclear power stations.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp, a nonprofit that works to ensure the reliability of the continent’s power system, said it was aware of the incident and was exchanging information with the industry through a secure portal.

“At this time, there has been no bulk power system impact in North America,” the corporation said in an emailed statement.

In addition, the operational controls at Wolf Creek were not pierced, according to government officials, even as attackers accessed utility control rooms elsewhere in the U.S., according to separate reports. “There was absolutely no operational impact to Wolf Creek,” Jenny Hageman, a spokeswoman for the nuclear plant, said in a statement to Bloomberg News.

“The reason that is true is because the operational computer systems are completely separate from the corporate network.”

Determining who is behind an attack can be tricky. Government officials look at the sophistication of the tools, among other key markers, when gauging whether a foreign government is sponsoring cyber activities.

Several private security firms, including Symantec researchers, are studying data on the attacks, but none has linked the work to a particular hacking team or country.

“We don’t tie this to any known group at this point,” said Sean McBride, a lead analyst for FireEye Inc, a global cyber security firm. “It’s not to say it’s not related, but we don’t have the evidence at this point.”

US intelligence officials have long been concerned about the security of the country’s electrical grid. The recent attack, striking almost simultaneously at multiple locations, is testing the government’s ability to coordinate an effective response among several private utilities, state and local officials, and industry regulators.

Specialised teams from Homeland Security and the FBI have been scrambled to help extricate the hackers from the power stations, in some cases without informing local and state officials. Meanwhile, the US National Security Agency is working to confirm the identity of the hackers, who are said to be using computer servers in Germany, Italy, Malaysia and Turkey to cover their tracks.

Many of the power plants are conventional, but the targeting of a nuclear facility adds to the pressure. While the core of a nuclear generator is heavily protected, a sudden shutdown of the turbine can trigger safety systems. These safety devices are designed to disperse excess heat while the nuclear reaction is halted, but the safety systems themselves may be vulnerable to attack.

Homeland Security and the FBI sent out a general warning about the cyber attack to utilities and related parties on June 28, though it contained few details or the number of plants affected. The government said it was most concerned about the “persistence” of the attacks on choke points of the US power supply. That language suggests hackers are trying to establish backdoors on the plants’ systems for later use, according to a former senior DHS official who asked not to be identified.

Those backdoors can be used to insert software specifically designed to penetrate a facility’s operational controls and disrupt critical systems, according to Galina Antova, co-founder of Claroty, a New York firm that specialises in securing industrial control systems.

“We’re moving to a point where a major attack like this is very, very possible,” Antova said. “Once you’re into the control systems -- and you can get into the control systems by hacking into the plant’s regular computer network -- then the basic security mechanisms you’d expect are simply not there.”

The situation is a little different at nuclear facilities. Backup power supplies and other safeguards at nuclear sites are meant to ensure that “you can’t really cause a nuclear plant to melt down just by taking out the secondary systems that are connected to the grid,” Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a phone interview.

The operating systems at nuclear plants also tend to be legacy controls built decades ago and don’t have digital control systems that can be exploited by hackers. Wolf Creek, for example, began operations in 1985. “They’re relatively impervious to that kind of attack,” Lyman said.

The alert sent out last week inadvertently identified Wolf Creek as one of the victims of the attack. An analysis of one of the tools used by the hackers had the stolen credentials of a plant employee, a senior engineer. A US official acknowledged the error was not caught until after the alert was distributed.

According to a security researcher who has seen the report, the malware that activated the engineer’s username and password was designed to be used once the hackers were already inside the plant’s computer systems.

The tool tries to connect to non-public computers, and may have been intended to identify systems related to Wolf Creek’s generation plant, a part of the facility typically more modern than the nuclear reactor control room, according to a security expert who asked to note be identified because the alert is not public.

Even if there is no indication that the hackers gained access to those control systems, the design of the malware suggests they may have at least been looking for ways to do so, the expert said.

Stan Luke, the mayor of Burlington, the largest community near Wolf Creek, which is surrounded by corn fields and cattle pastures, said he learned about a cyber threat at the plant only recently, and then only through golfing buddies.

With a population of just 2,700, Burlington boasts a community pool with three water slides and a high school football stadium that would be the envy of any junior college. Luke said those amenities lead back to the tax dollars poured into the community by Wolf Creek, Coffey County’s largest employer with some 1,000 workers, 600 of whom live in the county.

E&E News first reported on digital attacks targeting US nuclear plants, adding it was code-named Nuclear 17. A senior US official told Bloomberg that there was a bigger breach of conventional plants, which could affect multiple regions.

Industry experts and US officials say the attack is being taken seriously, in part because of recent events in Ukraine. Antova said that the Ukrainian power grid has been disrupted at least twice, first in 2015, and then in a more automated attack last year, suggesting the hackers are testing methods.

Scott Aaronson, executive director for security and business continuity at the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group, said utilities, grid operators and federal officials were already dissecting the attack on Ukraine’s electric sector to apply lessons in North America before the US government issued the latest warning to “energy and critical manufacturing sectors”. The current threat is unrelated to recently publicised ransomware incidents or the CrashOverride malware, Mr Aaronson said in an emailed statement.

Neither attack in Ukraine caused long-term damage. But with each escalation, the hackers may be gauging the world’s willingness to push back.

“If you think about a typical war, some of the acts that have been taken against critical infrastructure in Ukraine and even in the US, those would be considered crossing red lines,” Antova said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Hydro-Quebec NECEC Transmission Line faces Maine PUC scrutiny over clean energy claims, greenhouse gas emissions, spillage capacity, resource shuffling, and Massachusetts contracts, amid opposition from natural gas generators and environmental groups debating public need.

Key Points

A $1B Maine corridor for Quebec hydropower to Massachusetts, debated over emissions, spillage, and public need.

✅ Maine PUC weighing public need and ratepayer benefits

✅ Emissions impact disputed: resource shuffling vs new supply

✅ Hydro-Quebec spillage claims questioned without data

As Maine regulators are deciding whether to approve construction of a $1 billion electricity corridor across much of western Maine, the Canadian hydroelectric utility poised to make billions of dollars from the project has been absent from the process.

This has left both opponents and supporters of the line arguing about how much available energy the utility has to send through a completed line, and whether that energy will help fulfill the mission of the project: fighting climate change.

And while the utility has avoided making its case before regulators, which requires submitting to cross-examination and discovery, it has engaged in a public relations campaign to try and win support from the region's newspapers.

Government-owned Hydro-Quebec controls dams and reservoirs generating hydroelectricity throughout its namesake province. It recently signed agreements to sell electricity across the proposed line, named the New England Clean Energy Connect, to Massachusetts as part of the state's effort to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, including natural gas.

At the Maine Public Utilities Commission, attorneys for Central Maine Power Co., which would build and maintain the line, have been sparring with the opposition over the line's potential impact on Maine and its electricity consumers. Leading the opposition is a coalition of natural gas electricity generators that stand to lose business should the line be built, as well as the Natural Resources Council of Maine, an environmental group.

That unusual alliance of environmental and business groups wants Hydro-Quebec to answer questions about its hydroelectric system, which they argue can't deliver the amount of electricity promised to Massachusetts without diverting energy from other regions.

In that scenario, critics say the line would not produce the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that CMP and Hydro-Quebec have made a central part of their pitch for the project. Instead, other markets currently buying energy from Hydro-Quebec, such as New York, Ontario and New Brunswick, would see hydroelectricity imports decrease and have to rely on other sources of energy, including coal or oil, to make up the difference. If that happened, the total amount of clean energy in the world would remain the same.

Opponents call this possibility "greenwashing." Massachusetts regulators have described these circumstances as "resource shuffling."

But CMP spokesperson John Carroll said that if hydropower was diverted from nearby markets to power Massachusetts, those markets would not turn to fossil fuels. Rather they would seek to develop other forms of renewable energy "leading to further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the region."

Hydro-Quebec said it has plenty of capacity to increase its electricity exports to Massachusetts without diverting energy from other places.

However, Hydro-Quebec is not required to participate -- and has not voluntarily participated -- in regulatory hearings where it would be subject to cross examinations and have to testify under oath. Some participants wish it would.

At a January hearing at the Maine Public Utilities Commission, hearing examiner Mitchell Tannenbaum had to warn experts giving testimony to "refrain from commentary regarding whether Hydro-Quebec is here or not" after they complained about its absence when trying to predict potential ramifications of the line.

"I would have hoped they would have been visible and available to answer legitimate questions in all of these states through which their power is going to be flowing," said Dot Kelly, a member of the executive committee at the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club who has participated in the line's regulatory proceedings as an individual. "If you're going to have a full and fair process, they have to be there."

[What you need to know about the CMP transmission line proposed for Maine]

While Hydro-Quebec has not presented data on its system directly to Maine regulators, it has brought its case to the press. Central to that case is the fact that it's "spilling" water from its reservoirs because it is limited by how much electricity it can export. It said that it could send more water through its turbines and lower reservoir levels, eliminating spillage and creating more energy, if only it had a way to get that energy to market. Hydro-Quebec said the line would make that possible, and, in doing so, help lower emissions and fight climate change.

"We have that excess potential that we need to use. Essentially, it's a good problem to have so long as you can find an export market," Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Serge Abergel told the Bangor Daily News.

Hydro-Quebec made its "spillage" case to the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The Portland Press Herald and the BDN, winning qualified endorsements from the Globe and Press Herald. (The BDN editorial board has not weighed in on the project).

Opponents have questioned why Hydro-Quebec is willing to present their case to the press but not regulators.

"We need a better answer than 'just trust us,'" Natural Resources Council of Maine attorney Sue Ely said. "What's clear is that CMP and HQ are engaging in a full-court publicity tour peddling false transparency in an attempt to sell their claims of greenhouse gas benefits."

Energy generators aren't typically parties to public utility commission proceedings involving the building of transmission lines, but Maine regulators don't typically evaluate projects that will help customers in another state buy energy generated in a foreign country.

"It's a unique case," said Maine Public Advocate and former Democratic Senate Minority Leader Barry Hobbins, who has neither endorsed nor opposed the project. Hobbins noted the project was not proposed to improve reliability for Maine electricity customers, which is typically the point of new transmission line proposals evaluated by the commission. Instead, the project "is a straight shot to Massachusetts," Hobbins said.

Maine Public Utilities Commission spokesperson Harry Lanphear agreed. "The Commission has never considered this type of project before," he said in an email.

In order to proceed with the project, CMP must convince the Maine Public Utilities Commission that the proposed line would fill a "public need" and benefit Mainers. Among other benefits, CMP said it will help lower electricity costs and create jobs in Maine. A decision is expected in the spring.

Given the uniqueness of the case, even the commission seems unsure about how to apply the vague "public need" standard. On Jan. 14, commission staff asked case participants to weigh in on how it should apply Maine law when evaluating the project, including whether the hydroelectricity that would travel over the line should be considered "renewable" and whether Maine's own carbon reduction goals are relevant to the case.

James Speyer, an energy consultant whose firm was hired by natural gas company and project opponent Calpine to analyze the market impacts of the line, said he has testified before roughly 20 state public utility commissions and has never seen a proceeding like this one.

"I've never been in a case where one of the major beneficiaries of the PUC decision is not in the case, never has filed a report, has never had to provide any data to support its assertions, and never has been subject to cross examination," Speyer said. "Hydro-Quebec is like a black box."

Hydro-Quebec would gladly appear before the Maine Public Utilities Commission, but it has not been invited, said spokesperson Abergel.

"The PUC is doing its own process," Abergel said. "If the PUC were to invite us, we'd gladly intervene. We're very willing to collaborate in that sense."

But that's not how the commission process works. Individuals and organizations can intervene in cases, but the commission does not invite them to the proceedings, commission spokesperson Lanphear said.

CMP spokesperson Carroll dismissed concerns over emissions, noting that Hydro-Quebec is near the end of completing a more than 15-year effort to develop its clean energy resources. "They will have capacity to satisfy the contract with Massachusetts in their reservoirs," Carroll said.

While Maine regulators are evaluating the transmission line, Massachusetts' Department of Public Utilities is deciding whether to approve 20-year contracts between Hydro-Quebec and that state's electric utilities. Those contracts, which Hydro-Quebec has estimated could be worth close to $8 billion, govern how the utility sells electricity over the line.

Dean Murphy, a consultant hired by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office to review the contracts, testified before Massachusetts regulators that the agreements do not require a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Murphy also warned the contracts don't actually require Hydro-Quebec to increase the total amount of energy it sends to New England, as energy could be shuffled from established lines to the proposed CMP line to satisfy the contracts.

Parties in the Massachusetts proceeding are also trying to get more information from Hydro-Quebec. Energy giant NextEra is currently trying to convince Massachusetts regulators to issue a subpoena to force Hydro-Quebec to answer questions about how its exports might change with the construction of the transmission line. Hydro-Quebec and CMP have opposed the motion.

Hydro-Quebec has a reputation for guarding its privacy, according to Hobbins.

"It would have been easier to not have to play Sherlock Holmes and try to guess or try to calculate without having a direct 'yes' or 'no' response from the entity itself," Hobbins said.

Ultimately, the burden of proving that Maine needs the line falls on CMP, which is also responsible for making sure regulators have all the information they need to make a decision on the project, said former Maine Public Utilities Commission Chairman Kurt Adams.

"Central Maine Power should provide the PUC with all the info that it needs," Adams said. "If CMP can't, then one might argue that they haven't met their burden."

'They treat HQ with nothing but distrust'

If completed, the line would bring 9.45 terawatt hours of electricity from Quebec to Massachusetts annually, or about a sixth of the total amount of electricity Massachusetts currently uses every year (and roughly 80 percent of Maine's annual load). CMP's parent company Avangrid would make an estimated $60 million a year from the line, according to financial analysts.

As part of its legally mandated efforts to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change, Massachusetts would pay the $950 million cost of constructing the line. The state currently relies on natural gas, a fossil fuel, for nearly 70 percent of its electricity, a figure that helps explain natural gas companies' opposition to the project.

A panel of experts recently warned that humanity has 12 years to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius and prevent the worst effects of climate change, which include floods, droughts and extreme heat.

The line could lower New England's annual carbon emissions by as much as 3 million metric tons, an amount roughly equal to Washington D.C.'s annual emissions. Opponents worry that reduction could be mostly offset by increases in other markets.

But while both sides have claimed they are fighting for the environment, much of the debate features giant corporations with headquarters outside of New England fighting over the future of the region's electricity market, echoing customer backlash seen in other utility takeovers.

Hydro-Quebec is owned by the people of Quebec, and CMP is owned by Avangrid, which is in turn owned by Spanish energy giant Iberdrola. Leading the charge against the line are several energy companies in the Fortune 500, including Houston-based Calpine and Florida-based NextEra Energy.

However, only one side of the debate counts environmental groups as part of its coalition, and, curiously enough, that's the side with fossil fuel companies.

Some environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine and Environment Maine, have come out against the line, while others, including the Acadia Center and the Conservation Law Foundation, are still deciding whether to support or oppose the project. So far, none have endorsed the line.

"It is discouraging that some of the environmental groups are so opposed, but it seems the best is the enemy of the good," said CMP's Carroll in an email. "They seem to have no sense of urgency; and they treat HQ with nothing but distrust."

Much of the environmentally minded opposition to the project focuses on the impact the line would have on local wildlife and tourism.

Sandi Howard administers the Say NO To NECEC Facebook page and lives in Caratunk, one of the communities along the proposed path of the line. She said opposition to the line might change if it was proven to reduce emissions.

"If it were going to truly reduce global CO2 emissions, I think it would be be a different conversation," Howard said.

Not the first choice

Before Maine, New Hampshire had its own debate over whether it should serve as a conduit between Quebec and Massachusetts. The proposed Northern Pass transmission line would have run the length of the state. It was Massachusetts' first choice to bring Quebec hydropower to its residents.

But New Hampshire's Site Evaluation Committee unanimously voted to reject the Northern Pass project in February 2018 on the grounds that the project's sponsor, Eversource, had failed to prove the project would not interfere with local business and tourism. Though it was the source of the electricity that would have traveled over the line, Hydro-Quebec was not a party to the proceedings.

In its decision, the committee noted the project would not reduce emissions if it was not coupled with a "new source of hydropower" and the power delivered across the line was "diverted from Ontario and New York." The committee added that it was unclear if the power would be new or diverted.

The next month, Massachusetts replaced Northern Pass by selecting CMP's proposed line. As the project came before Maine regulators, questions about Hydro-Quebec and emissions persisted. Two different analyses of CMP's proposed line, including one by the Maine Public Utility Commission's independent consultant, found the line would greatly reduce New England's emissions.

But neither of those studies took into account the line's impact on emissions outside of New England. A study by Calpine's consultant, Energyzt, found New England's emissions reduction could be mostly offset by increased emissions in other areas, including New Brunswick and New York, that would see hydroelectricity imports shrink as energy was redirected to fulfill the contract with Massachusetts.

'They failed in any way to back up those spillage claims'

Hydro-Quebec seemed content to let CMP fight for the project alone before regulators for much of 2018. But at the end of the year, the utility took a more proactive approach, meeting with editorial boards and providing a two-page letter detailing its "spillage" issues to CMP, which entered it into the record at the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

The letter provided figures on the amount of water the utility spilled that could have been converted into sellable energy, if only Hydro-Quebec had a way to get it to market. Instead, by "spilling" the water, the company essentially wasted it.

Instead of sending water through turbines or storing it in reservoirs, hydroelectric operators sometimes discharge water held behind dams down spillways. This can be done for environmental reasons. Other times it is done because the operator has so much water it cannot convert it into electricity or store it, which is usually a seasonal issue: Reservoirs often contain the most water in the spring as temperatures warm and ice melts.

Hydro-Quebec said that, in 2017, it spilled water that could have produced 4.5 terawatt hours of electricity, or slightly more than half the energy needed to fulfill the Massachusetts contracts. In 2018, the letter continued, Hydro-Quebec spilled water that could have been converted into 10.4 terawatts worth of energy. The company said it didn't spill at all due to transmission constraints prior to 2017.

The contracts Hydro-Quebec signed with the Massachusetts utilities are for 9.45 terawatt hours annually for 20 years. In its letter, the utility essentially showed it had only one year of data to show it could cover the terms of the contract with "spilled" energy.

"Reservoir levels have been increasing in the last 15 years. Having reached their maximum levels, spillage maneuvers became necessary in 2017 and 2018," said Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Lynn St. Laurent.

By providing the letter through CMP, Hydro-Quebec did not have to subject its spillage figures to cross examination.

Dr. Shaleen Jain, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Maine, said that, while spilled water could be converted into power generation in some circumstances, spills happen for many different reasons. Knowing whether spillage can be translated into energy requires a great deal of analysis.

"Not all of it can be repurposed or used for hydropower," Jain said.

In December, one of the Maine Public Utility Commission's independent consultants, Gabrielle Roumy, told the commission that there's "no way" to "predict how much water would be spilled each and every year." Roumy, who previously worked for Hydro-Quebec, added that even after seeing the utility's spillage figures, he believed it would need to divert energy from other markets to fulfill its commitment to Massachusetts.

"I think at this point we're still comfortable with our assumptions that, you know, energy would generally be redirected from other markets to NECEC if it were built," Roumy said.

In January, Tanya Bodell, the founder and executive director of consultant Energyzt, testified before the commission on behalf of Calpine that it was impossible to know why Hydro-Quebec was spilling without more data.

"There's a lot of details you'd have to look at in order to properly assess what the reason for the spillage is," Bodell said. "And you have to go into an hourly level because the flows vary across the year, within the month, the week, the days. ...And, frankly, it would have been nice if Hydro-Quebec was here and brought their model and allowed us to see how this could help them to sell more."

Even though CMP and Hydro-Quebec's path to securing approval of the project does not go through the Legislature, and despite a Maine court ruling that energized Hydro-Quebec's export bid, lawmakers have taken notice of Hydro-Quebec's absence. Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, the House chairman of the Joint Committee On Energy Utilities and Technology and a frequent critic of CMP, said he would like to see Hydro-Quebec "show up and subject their proposal to examination and full analysis and public examination by the regulators and the people of Maine."

"They're trying to sell an incredibly lucrative proposal, and they failed in any way to back up those spillage claims with defensible numbers and defensible analysis," Berry said.

Berry was part of a bipartisan group of Maine lawmakers that wrote a letter to Massachusetts regulators last year expressing concerns about the project, which included doubts about whether the line would actually reduce global gas emissions. On Monday, he announced legislation that would direct the state to create an independent entity to buy out CMP from its foreign investors.

'No benefit to remaining quiet'

Hydro-Quebec would like to provide answers, but "there is always a commercially sensitive information concern when we do these things," said spokesperson Abergel.

"There might be stuff we can do, having an independent study that looks at all of this. I'm not worried about the conclusion," Abergel said. "I'm worried about how long it takes."

Instead of asking Hydro-Quebec questions directly, participants in both Maine and Massachusetts regulatory proceedings have had to direct questions for Hydro-Quebec to CMP. That arrangement may be part of Hydro-Quebec's strategy to control its information, said former Maine Public Utilities Commissioner David Littell.

"From a tactical point of view, it may be more beneficial for the evidence to be put through Avangrid and CMP, which actually doesn't have that back-up info, so can't provide it," Littell said.

Getting information about the line from CMP, and its parent company Avangrid, has at times been difficult, opponents say.

In August 2018, the commission's staff warned CMP in a legal filing that it was concerned "about what appears to be a lack of completeness and timeliness by CMP/Avangrid in responding to data requests in this proceeding."

The trouble in getting information from Hydro-Quebec and CMP only creates more questions for Hydro-Quebec, said Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association, which opposes the line in favor of Maine-based renewables.

"There's a few questions that should have relatively simple answers. But not answering a couple of those questions creates more questions," Payne said. "Why didn't you intervene in the docket? Why are you not a party to the case? Why won't you respond to these concerns? Why wouldn't you open yourself up to discovery?"

"I don't understand why they won't put it to bed," Payne said. "If you've got the proof to back it up, then there's no benefit to remaining quiet."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Calgary Electricity Price Increase signals higher ENMAX bills as grid demand surges; wholesale market volatility, fixed vs floating rates, kWh costs, and transmission charges drive above-average pricing across Alberta this winter.

Key Points

A market-led rise in Calgary power rates as grid demand and wholesale volatility affect fixed and floating plans.

✅ ENMAX warns of higher winter prices amid record grid demand

✅ Fixed rates hedge wholesale volatility; floating tracks spot market

✅ Transmission and distribution fees rise 5-10 percent annually

Calgarians should expect to be charged more for their electricity bills amid significant demand on the grid and a transition to above-average rates across Alberta.

ENMAX, one of the most-used electricity providers in the city, has sent an email to customers notifying them of higher prices for the rest of the winter months.

“Although fluctuations in electricity market prices are normal, we have seen a general trend of increasing rates over time,” the email to customers read.

“The price volatility we are forecasting is due to market factors beyond a single energy provider, including but not limited to expectations for a colder-than-normal winter and changes in electricity supply and demand in Alberta’s wholesale market. ”

Earlier this month, the province set a record for electricity usage during a bitterly cold stretch of weather.

According to energy comparison website energyrates.ca, Alberta’s energy prices have increased by 34 per cent between November 2020 and 2021.

“One of the reasons that this increase seems so significant is we’re actually coming off of a low period in the market,” the site’s founder Joel MacDonald told Global News. “You’re seeing rates well below average transitioning to well above average.”

According to ENMAX’s rate in January, the price of electricity currently sits at 15.9 cents per kilowatt-hour, with an electricity price spike from 7.9 cents per kilowatt-hour last year.

MacDonald said prices for electricity have been relatively low since 2018 but a swing in the price of oil has created more activity in the province’s industrial sector, and in turn more demand on the power grid.

According to MacDonald, the price increase can also be attributed to the removal of a consumer price cap that limited regulated rates to 6.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for households and small businesses with lower demand, which, after the carbon tax was repealed, initially remained in place.

Although the cap was scrapped by the UCP three years ago, he said energy bills now depend on the rate set by the market.

“What’s increased now recently is actually the price per kilowatt, and the (transmission and distribution) charges have only increased, but annually they increase between five and 10 per cent,” MacDonald said. “So the portion of your bill that’s increasing is different than what Albertans are typically used to, or at least in recent memory.”

But Albertans do have options, MacDonald said.

As part of its email to customers, ENMAX sent a list of energy saving tips to reduce energy consumption in people’s homes, including using cold water for laundry and avoiding dryer use, energy-efficient lightbulbs and unplugging electronics when they are not in use.

Retailers also offer contracts with floating or fixed rates for consumers.

“Fixed rates, obviously, you’re going to pick your price. It’s going to be the same each and every single month,” MacDonald said. “Floating rate is based off the wholesale spot market, and that has been exceptionally high the last few months.”

He said consumers looking to save money when electricity prices are high should look into a fixed rate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Oil Majors Energy Transition highlights BP, Shell, and Total rapidly scaling renewables, wind and solar assets, hydrogen, electricity, and EV charging while cutting upstream capex, aligning with net-zero goals and utility-style energy services.

Key Points

It is the shift by BP, Shell, Total and peers toward renewables, electricity, hydrogen, and EV charging to meet net-zero goals.

✅ Offshore wind, solar, and hydrogen projects scale across Europe

✅ Capex shifts, fossil output declines, net-zero targets by 2050

✅ EV charging, utilities, and power trading become core services

Under pressure from governments and investors, including rising investor pressure at utilities that reverberates across the sector, industry leaders like BP and Shell are accelerating their production of cleaner energy.

This may turn out to be the year that oil giants, especially in Europe, started looking more like electric companies.

Late last month, Royal Dutch Shell won a deal to build a vast wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. Earlier in the year, France’s Total, which owns a battery maker, agreed to make several large investments in solar power in Spain and a wind farm off Scotland. Total also bought an electric and natural gas utility in Spain and is joining Shell and BP in expanding its electric vehicle charging business.

At the same time, the companies are ditching plans to drill more wells as they chop back capital budgets. Shell recently said it would delay new fields in the Gulf of Mexico and in the North Sea, while BP has promised not to hunt for oil in any new countries.

Prodded by governments and investors to address climate change concerns about their products, Europe’s oil companies are accelerating their production of cleaner energy — usually electricity, sometimes hydrogen — and promoting natural gas, which they argue can be a cleaner transition fuel from coal and oil to renewables, as carbon emissions drop in power generation.

For some executives, the sudden plunge in demand for oil caused by the pandemic — and the accompanying collapse in earnings — is another warning that unless they change the composition of their businesses, they risk being dinosaurs headed for extinction.

This evolving vision is more striking because it is shared by many longtime veterans of the oil business.

“During the last six years, we had extreme volatility in the oil commodities,” said Claudio Descalzi, 65, the chief executive of Eni, who has been with that Italian company for nearly 40 years. He said he wanted to build a business increasingly based on green energy rather than oil.

“We want to stay away from the volatility and the uncertainty,” he added.

Bernard Looney, a 29-year BP veteran who became chief executive in February, recently told journalists, “What the world wants from energy is changing, and so we need to change, quite frankly, what we offer the world.”

The bet is that electricity will be the prime means of delivering cleaner energy in the future and, therefore, will grow rapidly as clean-energy investment incentives scale globally.

American giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron have been slower than their European counterparts to commit to climate-related goals that are as far reaching, analysts say, partly because they face less government and investor pressure (although Wall Street investors are increasingly vocal of late).

“We are seeing a much bigger differentiation in corporate strategy” separating American and European oil companies “than at any point in my career,” said Jason Gammel, a veteran oil analyst at Jefferies, an investment bank.

Companies like Shell and BP are trying to position themselves for an era when they will rely much less on extracting natural resources from the earth than on providing energy as a service tailored to the needs of customers — more akin to electric utilities than to oil drillers.

They hope to take advantage of the thousands of engineers on their payrolls to manage the construction of new types of energy plants; their vast networks of retail stations to provide services like charging electric vehicles; and their trading desks, which typically buy and hedge a wide variety of energy futures, to arrange low-carbon energy supplies for cities or large companies.

All of Europe’s large oil companies have now set targets to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Most have set a ”net zero” ambition by 2050, a goal also embraced by governments like the European Union and Britain.

The companies plan to get there by selling more and more renewable energy and by investing in carbon-free electricity across their portfolios, and, in some cases, by offsetting emissions with so-called nature-based solutions like planting forests to soak up carbon.

Electricity is the key to most of these strategies. Hydrogen, a clean-burning gas that can store energy and generate electric power for vehicles, also plays an increasingly large role.

The coming changes are clearest at BP. Mr. Looney said this month that he planned to increase investment in low-emission businesses like renewable energy by tenfold in the next decade to $5 billion a year, while cutting back oil and gas production by 40 percent. By 2030, BP aims to generate renewable electricity comparable to a few dozen large offshore wind farms.

Mr. Looney, though, has said oil and gas production need to be retained to generate cash to finance the company’s future.

Environmentalists and analysts described Mr. Looney’s statement that BP’s oil and gas production would decline in the future as a breakthrough that would put pressure on other companies to follow.

BP’s move “clearly differentiates them from peers,” said Andrew Grant, an analyst at Carbon Tracker, a London nonprofit. He noted that most other oil companies had so far been unwilling to confront “the prospect of producing less fossil fuels.”

While there is skepticism in both the environmental and the investment communities about whether century-old companies like BP and Shell can learn new tricks, they do bring scale and know-how to the task.

“To make a switch from a global economy that depends on fossil fuels for 80 percent of its energy to something else is a very, very big job,” said Daniel Yergin, the energy historian who has a forthcoming book, “The New Map,” on the global energy transition now occurring in energy. But he noted, “These companies are really good at big, complex engineering management that will be required for a transition of that scale.”

Financial analysts say the dreadnoughts are already changing course.

“They are doing it because management believes it is the right thing to do and also because shareholders are severely pressuring them,” said Michele Della Vigna, head of natural resources research at Goldman Sachs.

Already, he said, investments by the large oil companies in low-carbon energy have risen to as much as 15 percent of capital spending, on average, for 2020 and 2021 and around 50 percent if natural gas is included.

Oswald Clint, an analyst at Bernstein, forecast that the large oil companies would expand their renewable-energy businesses like wind, solar and hydrogen by around 25 percent or more each year over the next decade.

Shares in oil companies, once stock market stalwarts, have been marked down by investors in part because of the risk that climate change concerns will erode demand for their products. European electric companies are perceived as having done more than the oil industry to embrace the new energy era.

“It is very tricky for an investor to have confidence that they can pull this off,” Mr. Clint said, referring to the oil industry’s aspirations to change.

But, he said, he expects funds to flow back into oil stocks as the new businesses gather momentum.

At times, supplying electricity has been less profitable than drilling for oil and gas. Executives, though, figure that wind farms and solar parks are likely to produce more predictable revenue, partly because customers want to buy products labeled green.

Mr. Descalzi of Eni said converted refineries in Venice and Sicily that the company uses to make lower-carbon fuel from plant matter have produced better financial results in this difficult year than its traditional businesses.

Oil companies insist that they must continue with some oil and gas investments, not least because those earnings can finance future energy sources. “Not to make any mistake,” Patrick Pouyanné, chief executive of Total, said to analysts recently: Low-cost oil projects will be a part of the future.

During the pandemic, BP, Total and Shell have all scrutinized their portfolios, partly to determine if climate change pressures and lingering effects from the pandemic mean that petroleum reserves on their books — developed for perhaps billions of dollars, when oil was at the center of their business — might never be produced or earn less than previously expected. These exercises have led to tens of billions of dollars of write-offs for the second quarter, and there are likely to be more as companies recalibrate their plans.

“We haven’t seen the last of these,” said Luke Parker, vice president for corporate analysis at Wood Mackenzie, a market research firm. “There will be more to come as the realities of the energy transition bite.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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