Smooth the path to deregulation

EU Renewable Energy Shift is cutting gas dependence as wind and solar expand, reshaping Europe's power mix, curbing emissions, and pressuring coal use amid a supply crisis and rising natural gas prices.

Key Points

An EU trend where wind and solar growth reduce gas reliance, curb coal, and lower power-sector emissions.

✅ Wind and solar displace gas in EU power mix

✅ Coal use rises as gas prices surge

✅ Emissions fall, but not fast enough for 1.5 C target

The European Union’s renewable energy sources are helping reduce its dependence on natural gas, under the current European electricity pricing framework, that’s still costing the region dearly.

Renewables growth has helped reduce the EU’s dependence on gas, as wind and solar outpaced gas across the bloc last year, which has soared in price since the middle of last year as the region grapples with a supply crisis that’s dealt blows to industries as well as ordinary consumers’ pockets. More than half of new renewable generation since 2019 has replaced gas power, according to a study by London-based climate think tank Ember, with the rest replacing mainly nuclear and coal sources.

“These are moments and paradigm shifts when governments and businesses start taking this much more seriously,” said Charles Moore, the lead author on the study, amid Covid-19 responses accelerating the transition across Europe. “The alternatives are available, they are cheaper, and they are likely to get even cheaper and more competitive. Renewables are now an opportunity, not a cost.”

The high price of gas relative to coal has meant utilities are leaning more on coal as a back-up for renewable generation, as stunted hydro and nuclear output has constrained low-carbon alternatives in parts of Europe, which risks the trajectory of Europe’s phase-out of the dirtiest fossil fuel. Last year, the EU’s coal use jumped disproportionately high relative to the rise in power generation as high gas prices boosted the relative profitability of burning coal instead.

Europe Coal Use Jumps as Costly Gas Turns Firms to Dirty Fuel
EU power generation from renewables reached a record high in 2021 of 547 terawatt-hours last year, accounting for an 11% increase compared to two years before, according to Ember’s Europe Electricity Review. It’s more than doubled in a decade, representing a 157% increase since 2011. 

Gas use declined last year for the second year in a row, as Europe explores storing electricity in gas pipelines to leverage existing infrastructure, reaching a level 8.1% lower than 2019. By contrast, coal use fell just 3.3% in the same period. Put simply, wind and solar did a great job of replacing coal during 2011-2019 but since then renewables have mostly been nudging out gas-fired power stations.

Ember’s Moore warned that the slowing phase-out of coal might require legislation to accelerate. The International Energy Agency recommends OECD countries cease using coal by the end of the decade to ensure alignment with the Paris Agreement target of keeping the world’s temperature increase below 1.5 Celsius, with renewables poised to eclipse coal globally by the mid-2020s lending momentum. 

“Europe can accelerate the phasing out of coal by building more renewable energy and faster,” said Felicia Aminoff,  an energy-transition analyst at BloombergNEF. “Wind and solar have no fuel costs, so as soon as you have made the initial investments to build wind and solar capacity it will start replacing generation that uses any kind of fuel, whether it is coal or gas.”

Overall, EU power sector emissions fell at less than half the rate required to hit that target, Ember’s report said. Spain produced the largest emissions reduction in the last two years, with renewables adding about 25 TWh and gas falling 15 TWh, and in Germany renewables topped coal and nuclear for the first time to support the shift. In contrast, heavy use of coal dragged down the bloc’s climate progress in Poland, where coal use rose about 8 TWh and renewables gained only 4 TWh.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Electricity Demand Drop During COVID-19 reflects a 1,000-2,000 MW decline as IESO balances the grid, shifts peak demand later, throttles generators and baseload nuclear, and manages exports amid changing load curves.

Key Points

An about 10% reduction in Ontario's load, shifting peaks and requiring IESO grid balancing measures.

✅ Demand down 1,000-2,000 MW; roughly 10% below normal.

✅ Peak shifts later in morning as home use rises.

✅ IESO throttles generators; baseload nuclear stays online.

It’s as if the COVID-19 epidemic had tripped a circuit breaker, shutting off all power to a city the size of Ottawa.

Virus-induced restrictions that have shut down large swaths of normal commercial life across Canada has led to a noticeable drop in demand for power in Ontario and reflect a global demand dip according to reports, insiders said on Friday.

Terry Young, vice-president with the Independent Electricity System Operator, said planning was underway for further declines in usage and for whether Ontario will embrace more clean power in the long term, given the delicate balance that needs to be maintained between supply and demand.

“We’re now seeing demand that is running about 1,000 to 2,000 megawatts less than we would normally see,” Young said. “You’re essentially seeing a city the size of Ottawa drop off demand during the day.”

At the high end, a 2,000 megawatt reduction would be close to the equivalent peak demand of Ottawa and London, Ont., combined.

The decline, in the order of 10 per cent from the 17,000 to 18,000 megawatts of usage that might normally be expected and similar to the UK’s 10% drop reported during lockdowns, began last week, Young said. The downward trend became more noticeable as governments and health authorities ordered non-essential businesses to close and people to stay home. However, residential and hospital usage has climbed.

Experts say frequent hand-washing and staying away from others is the most effective way to curb the spread of the highly contagious coronavirus, which poses a special risk to older people and those with underlying health conditions. As a result, factories and other big users have reduced production or closed entirely.

Because electricity cannot be stored, generators need to throttle back their output as domestic demand shrinks and exports to places such as the United States, including New York City, which is also being hit hard by the coronavirus, fall.

“We’re watching this carefully,” Young said. “We’re able to manage this drop, but it’s something we obviously have to keep watching…and making sure we’re not over-generating electricity.”

Turning off generation, especially for nuclear plants, is an intensive process, as are restarts and would likely happen only if the downward demand trend intensifies significantly, amid concerns over Ontario’s electricity getting dirtier if baseload is displaced. However, one of North America’s largest generators, Bruce Power near Kincardine, Ont., said it had a large degree of flexibility to scale down or up.

“We have the ability to provide one-third of our output as a dynamic response, which is unique to our facility,” said James Scongack, an executive vice-president with Bruce Power. “We developed this coming out of the 2008 downturn and it’s been a critical system asset for the last decade.”

“We don’t see there being a scenario where our baseload will not be needed,” he said, even as some warn Ontario may be short of electricity in the coming years.

The province’s publicly owned Ontario Power Generation said it was also in conversations with the system operator, which provides direction to generators, and is often cited in the Ontario election discussion.

One clear shift in normal work-day usage with so many people staying at home has been the change in demand patterns. Typically, Young said, there’s a peak from about 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. as people wake and get ready to go to work or school. The peak is now occurring later in the morning, Young said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Wind Power drives cheap electricity rates in Iowa via utility-scale wind turbines, integrated transmission, battery storage, and grid management, delivering renewable energy, stable pricing, and long-term rate freezes through 2028.

Key Points

A vertically integrated wind utility lowering Iowa rates via owned generation, transmission, and advanced grid control.

✅ Owned wind assets meet Iowa residential demand

✅ Integrated transmission lowers costs and losses

✅ Rate freeze through 2028 sustains cheap power

In his latest letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Warren Buffett used the 20th anniversary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy to tout its cheap electricity bills for customers.

When Berkshire purchased the majority share of BHE in 2000, the cost of electricity for its residential customers in Iowa was 8.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on average. Since then, these electricity rates have risen at a paltry <1% per year, with a freeze on rate hikes through 2028. As anyone who pays an electricity bill knows, that is an incredible deal.  

As Buffett himself notes with alacrity, “Last year, the rates [BHE’s competitor in Iowa] charged its residential customers were 61% higher than BHE’s. Recently, that utility received a rate increase that will widen the gap to 70%.”

The Winning Strategy

So, what’s Buffett’s secret to cheap electricity? Wind power.

“The extraordinary differential between our rates and theirs is largely the result of our huge accomplishments in converting wind into electricity,” Buffett explains. 

Wind turbines in Iowa that BHE owns and operates are expected to generate about 25.2 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity for its customers, as projects like Building Energy operations begin to contribute. By Buffett’s estimations, that will be enough to power all of its residential customers’ electricity needs in Iowa.  

The company has plans to increase its renewable energy generation in other regions as well. This year, BHE Canada is expected to start construction on a 117.6MW wind farm in Alberta, Canada with its partner, Renewable Energy Systems, that will provide electricity to 79,000 homes in Canada’s oil country.

Observers note that Alberta is a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels, underscoring the region's unique transition.

But I would argue that the secret to BHE’s success perhaps goes deeper than transitioning to sources of renewable energy. There are plenty of other utility companies that have adopted wind and solar power as an energy source. In the U.S., where renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, at least 50% of electricity customers have the option to buy renewable electricity from their power supplier, according to the Department of Energy. And some states, such as New York, have gone so far as to allow customers to pick from providers who generate their electricity.

What differentiates BHE from a lot of the competition in the utility space is that it owns the means to generate, store, transmit and supply renewable power to its customers across the U.S., U.K. and Canada, with lessons from the U.K. about wind power informing policy.

In its financial filings for 2019, the company reported that it owns 33,600MW of generation capacity and has 33,400 miles of transmission lines, as well as a 50% interest in Electric Transmission Texas (ETT) that has approximately 1,200 miles of transmission lines. This scale and integration enables BHE to be efficient in the distribution and sale of electricity, including selling renewable energy across regions.

BHE is certainly not alone in building renewable-energy fueled electricity dominions. Its largest competitor, NextEra, built 15GW of wind capacity and has started to expand its utility-scale solar installations. Duke Energy owns and operates 2,900 MW of renewable energy, including wind and solar. Exelon operates 40 wind turbine sites across the U.S. that generate 1,500 MW.

Integrated Utilities Power Ahead

It’s easy to see why utility companies see wind as a competitive source of electricity compared to fossil fuels. As I explained in my previous post, Trump’s Wrong About Wind, the cost of building and generating wind energy have fallen significantly over the past decade. Meanwhile, improvements in battery storage and power management through new technological advancements have made it more reliable (Warren Buffett bet on that one too).

But what is also striking is that integrated power and transmission enables these utility companies to make those decisions; both in terms of sourcing power from renewable energy, as well as the pricing of the final product. Until wind and solar power are widespread, these utility companies are going to have an edge of the more fragmented ends of the industry who can’t make these purchasing or pricing decisions independently. 

Warren Buffett very rarely misses a beat. He’s not the Oracle of Omaha for nothing. Berkshire Hathaway’s ownership of BHE has been immensely profitable for its shareholders. In the year ended December 31, 2019, BHE and its subsidiaries reported net income attributable to BHE shareholders of $2.95 billion.

There’s no question that renewable energy will transform the utility industry over the next decade. That change will be led by the likes of BHE, who have the power to invest, control and manage their own energy generation assets.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Codling Bank Offshore Wind Project will deliver a 1.1 GW offshore wind farm off the Wicklow coast, as EDF Renewables and Fred Olsen Renewables invest billions to support Ireland's CAP 2030 and cut carbon emissions.

Key Points

A 1.1 GW offshore wind farm off Co Wicklow, led by EDF and Fred Olsen, advancing Ireland's CAP 2030 targets.

✅ Up to 1.1 GW capacity; hundreds of turbines off Co Wicklow

✅ EDF Renewables partners with Fred Olsen Renewables

✅ Investment well over €2bn, supporting 70% electricity by 2030

It’s been previously estimated that the entire Codling Bank project, which will eventually see hundreds of wind turbines, such as a huge offshore wind turbine now coming to market, erected about 13km off the Co Wicklow coast, could be worth as much as €100m. The site is set to generate up to 1.1 gigawatts of electricity when it’s eventually operational.

It’s likely to cost well over €2bn to develop, and with new pipelines abroad where Long Island offshore turbine proposals are advancing, scale economies are increasingly relevant.

The other half of the project is owned by Norway’s Fred Olsen Renewables, with tens of millions of euro already reportedly spent on surveys and other works associated with the scheme. Initial development work started in 2003.

Mr Barrett will now continue to focus on his non-Irish renewable projects, at a time when World Bank wind power support is accelerating in developing countries, said Hazel Shore, the company that sold the stake. It added that Johnny Ronan and Conor Ronan, the developer’s brother, will retain an equity interest in the Codling project.

“The Hazel Shore shareholders remain committed to continuing their renewable and forestry businesses,” noted the firm, whose directors include Paddy Teahon, a former secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach and chairman of the National Offshore Wind Association of Ireland.

The French group’s EDF Renewables subsidiary will now partner with the Norwegian firm to develop and build the Codling Bank project, in a sector widely projected to become a $1 trillion business over the coming decades.

EDF pointed out that the acquisition of the Codling Bank stake comes after the government committed to reducing carbon emissions. A Climate Action Plan launched last year will see renewable projects generating 70pc of Ireland’s electricity by 2030, with more than a third of Irish electricity to be green within four years according to recent analysis. Offshore wind is expected to deliver at least 3.5GW of power in support of the objective.

Bruno Bensasson, EDF Group senior executive vice-president of renewable energies and the CEO of EDF Renewables said the French group is “committed to contributing to the Irish government’s renewables goals”.

“This important project clearly strengthens our strong ambition to be a leading global player in the offshore wind industry,” he added. “This is consistent with the CAP 2030 strategy that aims to double EDF’s renewable energy generation by 2030 and increase it to 50GW net.”

Matthieu Hue, the CEO of EDF Renewables UK and Ireland said the firm already has an office in Dublin and is looking for further renewable projects, as New York's biggest offshore wind farm moves ahead, underscoring momentum.

Last November, the ESB teamed up with EDF in Scotland, reflecting how UK offshore wind is powering up, with the Irish utility buying a 50pc stake in the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind project. The massive wind farm is expected to generate up to 450MW of electricity and will cost about €2.1bn to develop.

EDF said work on that project is “well under way”.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

SaskPower 10% Electricity Rebate promises one-year bill relief for households, farms, businesses, hospitals, schools, and universities in Saskatchewan, boosting affordability amid COVID-19, offsetting rate hikes, and countering carbon tax impacts under Scott Moe's plan.

Key Points

One-year 10% SaskPower rebate lowering bills for residents, farms, and institutions, funded by general revenue.

✅ Applies automatically to all customers for 12 months from Dec 2020.

✅ Average savings: $215 residential; $845 farm; broad sector coverage.

✅ Cost $261.6M, paid from the general revenue fund; separate from carbon tax.

Saskatchewan Party leader Scott Moe says SaskPower customers can expect a one-year, 10 per cent rebate on electricity if they are elected government.

Moe said the pledge aims to make life more affordable for people, including through lower electricity rates initiatives seen in other provinces. The rate would apply to everyone, including residential customers, farmers, businesses, hospitals, schools and universities.

The plan, which would cost government $261.6 million, expects to save the average residential customer $215 over the course of the year and the average farm customer $845.  

“This is a very equitable way to ensure that we are not only providing that opportunity for those dollars to go back into our economy and foster the economic recovery that we are working towards here, in Saskatchewan, across Canada and around the globe, but it also speaks to the affordability for our Saskatchewan families, reducing the dollars a day off to pay for their for their power bill,” Moe said.

The rebate would be applied automatically to all SaskPower bills for 12 months, starting in December 2020. 

Moe said residential customers who are net metering and generating their own power, such as solar power, would receive a $215 rebate over the 12-month period, which is the equivalent of the average residential rebate.

The $261.6 million in costs would be covered by the government’s general revenue fund.   

The Saskatchewan NDP said the proposed reduction is "a big change in direction from the Sask. Party’s long history of making life more expensive for Saskatchewan families." and recently took aim at a SaskPower rate hike approval as part of that critique.

Trent Wotherspoon, NDP candidate for Regina Rosemont and former finance critic, called the pledge criticized the one year time frame and said Saskatchewan people need long term, reliable affordability, noting that the Ontario-Quebec hydro deal has not reduced hydro bills for consumers. Something, he said, is reflected in the NDP plan.

“We've already brought about announcements that bring about affordability, such as the break on SGI auto insurance that'll happen, year after year after year, affordable childcare which has been already announced and committed to things like a decent minimum wage instead of having the lowest minimum wage in Canada,” Wotherspoon said.

The NDP pointed out SaskPower bills have increased by 57 per cent since 2007 for families with an average household income of $75,000, while Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike was recently approved by its regulator.

It said the average bill for such household was $901 in 2007-08 and is now $1,418 in 2019-20, while in neighbouring provinces Manitoba rate increases of 2.5 per cent annually have also been proposed for three years.

"This is on top of the PST increases that the Sask. Party put on everyday families – costing them more than $700 a year," the NDP said.

Moe took aim at the federal Liberal government’s carbon tax, citing concerns that electricity prices could soar under national policies.

He said if the Saskatchewan government wins its court fight against Ottawa, all SaskPower customers can expect to save an additional $150 million per year, and he questioned the federal 2035 net-zero electricity grid target in that context.

“As it stands right now, the Trudeau government plans to raise the carbon tax from $30 to $40 a tonne on Jan. 1,” Moe said. “Trudeau plans to raise taxes and your SaskPower bill, in the middle of a pandemic.  The Saskatchewan Party will give you a break by cutting your power bill.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News