Wind energy: mainstream renewable power

Texas Utility COVID-19 Relief suspends disconnections, waives late fees, extends payment plans, and supports broadband access as electric, gas, and internet providers help customers during the statewide emergency with speed upgrades and student WiFi initiatives.

Key Points

Texas utilities pause disconnections, waive fees, expand access, and offer flexible payment plans during COVID-19.

✅ Disconnections and late fees suspended by gas, power, internet.

✅ Payment plans and deferred balances after emergency.

✅ Bandwidth caps lifted; student WiFi access for remote learning.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Texas utility companies have taken unprecedented steps to keep customers' lights on, gas flowing, and online connections stable -- even if they can't pay, amid concerns over pandemic electricity shutoffs nationwide.

Meantime, Palestine City Council members plan to discuss hardship measures Monday, as some states such as New Jersey and New York implement moratoriums on shut-offs, but have no plans yet to ease the burden of paying two other essential services during the statewide emergency -- trash collection and water. Those services are billed through the city.

For many residents, money will be tight after the statewide emergency declaration. Businesses are cutting back or closing. Workers are staying home to avoid the coronavirus.

"We are putting our customers first," Larry Ball, spokesman for Atmos Energy, a Dallas-based natural gas company, told the Herald-Press Friday. "The safety of all of our customers has always been our first priority."

While the declared emergency remains in effect, Atmos has suspended all late fees and customer disconnections, a step similar to PG&E's shutoff moratorium in California.

"Atmos Energy's commitment to safety, paired with our culture, have led us during unique times," Kevin Akers, Atmos President and CEO said. "This will be no different."

Internet Service Providers SuddenLink and Centurylink have similarly suspended all disconnections and late fees. Additionally, Centurylink, a global company serving 36 states, has promised to scrap bandwidth limits, while ensuring the highest speeds possible.

SuddenLink, a division of Altice Business, is also partnering with school districts in their service area to offer its Student WiFi product free for 60 days. That will allow students who have school-issued devices, but no dedicated home Internet access, the ability to use the Optimum WiFi Hot Spot Network to access their school's network and resources.

Electric companies such as TXU and Houston-based Gexa Energy also are working to keep customers safe and connected, and Entergy's relief fund highlights additional support for customers.

During the declared emergency, Gexa is waiving all disconnection and reconnection fees, as well as late fees, a policy focus that later intersected with debates over a proposed electricity market bailout in Texas. Payment plans will be set up for customers, after the crisis ends, Gexa Energy officials said.

"Everyone needs their power on," a Gexa spokesman said. "That is our number one priority."

TXU, based in Irving, is waiving late fees, extending payment due dates with no down-payment required, and deferring customer balances over multiple installments, while some retailers like Griddy underscored the risks of variable-rate plans.

If customers still can't pay, TXU officials said, the company will keep their lights on, a commitment underscored after the Texas winter storm outages exposed vulnerabilities. Customers in need should call 800-242-9113.

"The coronavirus is causing uncertainty and many hardships," Scott Hudson, president of TXU energy, said. "We are committed to serving our communities."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Labor National Electricity Market Reform aims to rebalance NEM rules, support a fair-dinkum clean energy target, enable renewable zones, bolster storage and grid reliability, empower households, and unlock CEFC investment via the Finkel review.

Key Points

Labor's plan to overhaul NEM rules for households, clean energy targets, renewable zones, storage, and CEFC investment.

✅ Revises NEM rules to curb big generators' market power

✅ Backs a clean energy target informed by the Finkel review

✅ Expands renewable zones, storage, and CEFC finance

Australia's Labor leader Bill Shorten has called for significant changes to the rules governing the national electricity market, saying they are biased in favour of big energy generators, leaving households worse off even with measures like a WA electricity bill credit in place.

He said the national electricity market (NEM) rules are designed to help the big companies recoup the money they spent on purchasing government assets, a dynamic echoed in debates like a Calgary market overhaul dispute unfolding in Canada, rather than encourage households to generate their own power, and they need to change faster to adapt to consumer needs.

His comments hint at a possible overhaul of the NEM’s governance structure under a future Labor government, because the current rule-making process is too cumbersome and slow, with suggested rules changes taking years to be introduced.

Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism

Labor had promoted a similar idea in the lead-up to the 2016 election, with its call for an electricity modernization review, but now the Finkel review has been released it would be used to guide such a review.

In a speech to the Australian Financial Review’s National Energy Summit in Sydney on Monday, Shorten recommitted Labor to negotiating a “fair-dinkum” clean energy target with the Turnbull government, amid modelling that a strong clean energy target can lower electricity prices, saying “it’s time to put away the weapons of the climate change wars” and work together to find a way forward.

He said the media and business can all share the blame for Australia’s lost decade of energy policy development, with examples abroad showing how leadership steers change, such as in Alberta where Kenney's influence on power policy has been pronounced, but “we need to stop spoiling for a fight and start seeking a solution”.

“The scare campaigns and hyper-partisanship that got Australia into this mess, will not get us out of it,” he will say.

“That’s why, a bit over four months ago, before the chief scientist released his report, I wrote to the prime minister offering an olive branch.

“I said Labor was prepared to move from our preferred position of an emissions intensity scheme and negotiate a fair-dinkum clean energy target.

“That offer was greeted with some cynicism in the media. But let me be crystal clear – I made that offer in good faith, and that offer still stands.”

Shorten said Australia needs to resolve the current “gas crisis” and do more to drive investment in renewable energy that delivers more reliable electricity, a priority underscored by the IEA's warning that falling global energy investment risks shortages, and if Labor wins the next election it will organise Australia into a series of renewable energy zones – as recommended by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel – that identify wind, solar, pumped hydro and geothermal resources, and connect them to the existing network.

“These zones would be based on both existing generation and storage in the area – and the potential for future development,” he said.

Australia's politics only barrier to clean energy system, report finds

“Identifying these zones – from eastern Queensland, north-east New South Wales, west Victoria, the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia and the entire state of Tasmania – will also plant a flag for investors – signalling future sites for job-creating projects.”

Shorten also said Labor will free up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in more generation and more storage.

“Under Labor, the return benchmark for the CEFC was set at the weighted average of the Australian government bond rate.

“Under this government, it was initially increased to the weighted average plus 4% to 5% and is now set at the average plus 3% to 4%.

“Setting the return benchmark too high defeats the driving purpose of the CEFC and it holds back the crucial investment Australia needs – right now – in new generation and storage.

“This is why a Labor government would restore the original benchmark return of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to invest in more generation, more storage and more jobs.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

London Underground Power Outage 2025 disrupted Tube lines citywide, with a National Grid voltage dip causing service suspensions, delays, and station closures; TfL recovery efforts spotlight infrastructure resilience, contingency planning, and commuter safety communications.

Key Points

A citywide Tube disruption on May 12, 2025, triggered by a National Grid voltage dip, exposing resilience gaps.

✅ Bakerloo, Waterloo & City, Northern suspended; Jubilee disrupted.

✅ Cause: brief National Grid fault leading to a voltage dip.

✅ TfL focuses on recovery, communication, and resilience upgrades.

On May 12, 2025, a significant power outage disrupted the London Underground during the afternoon rush hour, affecting thousands of commuters across the city. The incident highlighted vulnerabilities in the city's transport infrastructure, echoing a morning outage in London reported earlier, and raised concerns about the resilience of urban utilities.

The Outage and Its Immediate Impact

The power failure occurred around 2:30 PM, leading to widespread service suspensions and delays on several key Tube lines. The Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines were completely halted, while the Jubilee line experienced disruptions between London Bridge and Finchley Road. The Northern line was also suspended between Euston and Kennington, as well as south of Stockwell. Additionally, Elizabeth Line services between Abbey Wood and Paddington were suspended. Some stations were closed for safety reasons due to the lack of power.

Commuters faced severe delays, with many stranded in tunnels or on platforms. The lack of information and communication added to the confusion, as passengers were left uncertain about the cause and duration of the disruptions.

Cause of the Power Failure

Transport for London (TfL) attributed the outage to a brief fault in the National Grid's transmission network. Although the fault was resolved within seconds, it caused a voltage dip that affected local distribution networks, leading to the power loss in the Underground system.

The incident underscored the fragility of the city's transport infrastructure, particularly the aging electrical and signaling systems that are vulnerable to such faults, as well as weather-driven events like a major windstorm outage that can trigger cascading failures. While backup systems exist, their capacity to handle sudden disruptions remains a concern.

Broader Implications for Urban Infrastructure

This power outage is part of a broader pattern of infrastructure challenges facing London. In March 2025, a fire at an electrical substation in Hayes led to the closure of Heathrow Airport, affecting over 200,000 passengers, while similar disruptions at BWI Airport have underscored aviation vulnerabilities. These incidents have prompted discussions about the resilience of the UK's energy and transport networks.

Experts argue that aging infrastructure, coupled with increasing demand and climate-related stresses, poses significant risks to urban operations, as seen in a North Seattle outage and in Toronto storm-related outages that tested local grids. There is a growing call for investment in modernization and diversification of energy sources to ensure reliability and sustainability.

TfL's Response and Recovery Efforts

Following the outage, TfL worked swiftly to restore services. By 11 PM, all but one line had resumed operations, with only the Elizabeth Line continuing to experience severe delays. TfL officials acknowledged the inconvenience caused to passengers and pledged to investigate the incident thoroughly, similar to the Atlanta airport blackout inquiry conducted after a major outage, to prevent future occurrences.

In the aftermath, TfL emphasized the importance of clear communication with passengers during disruptions and committed to enhancing its contingency planning and infrastructure resilience.

Public Reaction and Ongoing Concerns

The power outage sparked frustration among commuters, many of whom took to social media to express their dissatisfaction, echoing sentiments during Houston's extended outage about communication gaps and delays. Some passengers reported being trapped in tunnels for extended periods without clear guidance from staff.

The incident has reignited debates about the adequacy of London's transport infrastructure and the need for comprehensive upgrades. While TfL has initiated reviews and improvement plans, the public remains concerned about the potential for future disruptions and the city's preparedness to handle them.

The May 12 power outage serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in urban infrastructure. As London continues to grow and modernize, ensuring the resilience of its transport and energy networks will be crucial. This includes investing in modern technologies, enhancing communication systems, and developing robust contingency plans to mitigate the impact of future disruptions. For now, Londoners are left reflecting on the lessons learned from this incident and hoping for a more reliable and resilient transport system in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Alberta Electricity Market Reform reshapes policy under the UCP, weighing a capacity market versus energy-only design, AESO reliability rules, renewables targets, coal phase-out, carbon pricing, consumer rates, and investment certainty before AUC decisions.

Key Points

Alberta Electricity Market Reform is the UCP plan to reassess capacity vs energy-only, renewables, and carbon pricing.

✅ Reviews capacity market timeline and AESO procurement

✅ Alters subsidies for renewables; slows wind and solar growth

✅ Adjusts industrial carbon levy; audits Balancing Pool losses

Hearings kicked off this week into the future of the province’s electricity market design, amid an electricity market reshuffle pledged by the province, but a high-stakes decision about the industry’s fate — affecting billions of dollars in investment and consumer costs — won’t be made inside the meeting room of the Alberta Utilities Commission.

Instead, it will take place in the office of Jason Kenney, as the incoming premier prepares to pivot away from the seismic reforms to Alberta’s electricity sector introduced by the Notley government.

The United Conservative Party has promised to adopt market-based policies, reflecting changes to how Alberta produces and pays for power, that will reset how the sector operates, from its approach to renewable energy and carbon pricing to re-evaluating the planned transition to an electricity “capacity market.”

“Every ball in electricity is up in the air right now,” Vittoria Bellissimo, of the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta, said Tuesday during a break in the commission hearings.

Industry players are uncertain how quickly the UCP will change direction on power policies, but there’s little doubt Kenney’s government will take a strikingly different approach to the sector that keeps the lights on in Alberta.

“There’s some things they are going to change that are going to impact the electricity industry significantly,” said Duane Reid-Carlson, chief executive of consultancy EDC Associates.

“But I don’t think it’s going to be upheaval. I think the new government will proceed with caution because electricity is the foundation of our economy.”

Alberta’s electricity market has been turned on its head in recent years due to the recession, power prices dropping to near two-decade lows and several transformative policies initiated by the NDP.

The Notley government’s climate plan included an accelerated phase-out of all coal-fired generation and set targets for more renewable energy.

The most significant, but least-understood, move has been the planned shift to an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Under the strategy, generators will no longer solely be paid for the power produced and sold into the market; they will also receive payments for having electricity capacity available to the grid on demand.

The change was recommended by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) as a way to reduce price volatility and provide more reliability than the current energy-only market, which some argue needs more competition to deliver better outcomes.

The independent system operator and industry officials have spent more than two years planning the transition since the switch was announced in late 2016. Proposed rules for the new system, outlining market changes, are now being discussed at the Alberta Utilities Commission hearings.

However, there is no ironclad guarantee the system remake will go ahead following the UCP’s election victory last week — amid calls to scrap the overhaul from a Calgary retailer — it plans to study the issue further — while other substantive electricity changes are already in store.

The UCP has promised to end “costly subsidies” to renewable energy developments and abandon the NDP’s pledge to have such energy sources make up 30 per cent of all power generation by 2030.

It will remove the planned phase-out of coal-fired electricity generation, although federal regulations for a 2030 prohibition remain in place.

It will also ask the auditor general to conduct a special audit of the massive losses sustained by the province’s Balancing Pool due to power purchase arrangements being handed back to the agency three years ago.

While Kenney has pledged to cancel the provincewide carbon tax, a levy on large industrial greenhouse gas emitters (such has power plants) will still be charged, although at a reduced rate of $20 a tonne.

The biggest unknown remains the power market’s structure, which underpins how the entire system operates.

The UCP has promised to consult on the shift to the capacity market and report back to Albertans within 90 days.

The complex issue may sound like an eye-glazer, but it will have a profound effect on industry investment, as well as how much consumers pay on their monthly electricity bills.

A number of industry players worry the capacity market will lead AESO to procure more power than is necessary, foisting unnecessary costs onto all Albertans.

“I still have concerns for what the impact on consumers is going to be,” said energy market consultant Sheldon Fulton. “I’d love to see the capacity market go away.”

An analysis by EDC Associates found the transition to a capacity market will procure additional electricity before it’s needed, requiring consumers to pay up to 40 per cent more — an extra $1.4 billion — for power in 2021-22 than under the existing market structure.

“I don’t think there’s any prejudged outcome,” said Blake Shaffer, former head trader at TransAlta Corp. and a fellow-in-residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.

“But it really matters about getting this right.”

Evan Bahry, executive director of the Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta, said the fact the UCP’s review was confined to just 90 days is helpful, as it avoids throwing the entire industry into a prolonged period of uncertainty.

As for the greening of Alberta’s power grid, amid growing attention to clean grids and storage, the demise of the NDP’s Renewable Electricity Program will likely slow down the rapid pace of wind and solar development. But it’s unlikely to stop the growth trend as costs continue to fall for such developments.

“Renewables over the last number of years have evolved to the point that they make sense on a subsidy-free basis,” said Dan Balaban, CEO of Greengate Power Corp., which has developed 480 MW of wind power in Alberta and Ontario.

“There is a path to clean electricity ahead.”

Chris Varcoe is a Calgary Herald columnist.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NB Power and Hydro-Québec Electricity Agreements expand clean hydroelectric exports, support Mactaquac dam refurbishment, add grid interconnections, and advance decarbonization, climate goals, reliability, and transmission capacity across Atlantic Canada and U.S. markets through 2040.

Key Points

Deals for hydro exports, Mactaquac upgrades, and new interconnections to improve reliability and cut emissions.

✅ 47 TWh to NB by 2040 over existing transmission lines

✅ HQ expertise to address Mactaquac concrete swelling

✅ Talks on new interconnections for Atlantic and U.S. exports

NB Power and Hydro-Quebec have signed three deals that will see Quebec sell more electricity to New Brunswick and provide help with the refurbishment of the Mactaquac hydroelectric generating station.

Under the first agreement, Hydro-Quebec will export 47 terawatt hours of electricity to New Brunswick between now and 2040 over existing power lines — expanding on an agreement in place since 2012 and on related regional agreements such as the Churchill Falls deal in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The second deal will see Hydro-Quebec share expertise for part of the refurbishment of the Mactaquac dam to extend the useful life of the generating station until at least 2068, when the 670 megawatt facility on the St. John River will be 100 years old.

Since the 1980s, concrete portions of the facility have been affected by a chemical reaction that causes the concrete to swell and crack.

Hydro-Quebec has been dealing with the same problem, and has developed expertise in addressing the issue.

“This is why we have signed a technical collaboration agreement between Hydro-Quebec and us for part of the refurbishment of the Mactaquac generating station,” NB Power president Gaetan Thomas said Friday.

Eric Martel, CEO of Hydro-Quebec, said hydroelectric plants provide long-term clean power that’s important in the fight against climate change as the province has ruled out nuclear power for now.

“We understand how important it is to ensure the long term sustainability of these facilities and we are happy to share the expertise that Hydro-Quebec has acquired over the years,” Martel said.

The refurbishment of the Mactaquac generating station is expected to cost between $2.9 billion and $3.5 billion. Once the work begins, each of the facility’s six generators will have to be taken offline for months at a time, and Thomas said that’s where the increased power from Quebec, supported by Hydro-Quebec's capacity expansion in recent years, will come into use.

He expects the power could cost about $100 million per year but will be much cheaper than other sources.

The third agreement calls for talks to begin for the construction of additional power connections between Quebec and New Brunswick to increase exports to Atlantic Canada and the United States, where transmission constraints have limited incremental deliveries in recent years.

“Building new interconnections and allowing for increased power transfer between our systems could be mutually beneficial, even as historic tensions in Newfoundland and Labrador linger. More than ever, we are looking to the future,” Martel said.

“Partnering will permit us to seize new business opportunities together and pool our effort to support de-carbonization, including Hydro-Quebec's non-fossil strategy that is now underway, and fight against climate change, both here and in our neighbourhood market,” he said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News