Kentucky power bills increasing

Indonesia Coal Production Cuts reflect weaker China demand, COVID-19 impacts, falling HBA reference prices, and DMO sales to PLN, pressuring thermal coal output, miner budgets, and investment plans under the 2020 RKAB.

Key Points

Planned 2020 coal output reductions from China demand slump, lower HBA prices, and DMO constraints impacting miners.

✅ China demand drop reduces exports and thermal coal shipments.

✅ HBA reference price decline pressures margins and cash flow.

✅ DMO sales to PLN limit revenue; investment plans may slow.

The Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Ministry is considering lowering the coal production target this year as demand from China has shown a significant decline, with China power demand drops reported, since the start of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in the country late last year, a senior ministry official has said.

The ministry’s coal and mineral director general Bambang Gatot Ariyono said in Jakarta on March 12 that the decline in the demand had also caused a sharp drop in coal prices on the world market, and China's plan to reduce coal power has further weighed on sentiment, which could cause the country’s miners to reduce their production.

The 2020 minerals and coal mining program and budget (RKAB) has set a current production goal of 550 million tons of coal, a 10 percent increase from last year’s target. As of March 6, 94.7 million tons of coal had been mined in the country in the year.

“With the existing demand, revision to this year’s production is almost certain,” he said, adding that the drop in demand had also caused a decline in coal prices.

Indonesia’s thermal coal reference price (HBA) fell by 26 percent year-on-year to US$67.08 per metric ton in March, according to a Standards & Poor press release on March 5.  At home, the coal price is also unattractive for local producers. Under the domestic market obligation (DMO) policy, miners are required to sell a quarter of their production to state-owned electricity company PLN at a government-set price, even as imported coal volumes rise in some markets. This year’s coal reference price is $70 per metric ton, far below the internal prices before the coronavirus outbreak hit China.

The ministry’s expert staff member Irwandy Arif said China had reduced its coal demand by 200,000 tons so far, as six of its coal-fired power plants had suspended operation due to the significant drop in electricity demand. Many factories in the country were closed as the government tried to halt the spread of the new coronavirus, which caused the decline in energy demand and created electric power woes for international supply chains.

“At present, all mines in Indonesia are still operating normally, while India is rationing coal supplies amid surging electricity demand. But we have to see what will happen in June,” he said.

The ministry predicted that the low demand would also result in a decline in coal mining investment, as clean energy investment has slipped across many developing nations.

The ministry set a $7.6 billion investment target for the mining sector this year, up from $6.17 billion last year, even as Israel reduces coal use in its power sector, which may influence regional demand. The year’s total investment realization was $192 million as of March 6, or around 2.5 percent of the annual target. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ecofiscal Commission EV Policy Shift examines carbon pricing limits, endorsing signal boosters like subsidies, EV incentives, and coal bans, amid advisory changes and public pushback, to accelerate emissions cuts beyond market-based taxes and regulations.

Key Points

An updated stance recognizing carbon pricing limits and backing EV incentives, subsidies, and rules to reduce emissions.

✅ Carbon pricing plus subsidies, EV incentives

✅ Advisory shift; Jack Mintz departs

✅ Focus on emissions cuts, coal power bans

Something strange happened at the Ecofiscal Commission recently. Earlier this month, the carbon-tax advocacy group featured on its website as one of its advisers the renowned Canadian economist (and FP Comment columnist) Jack M. Mintz. The other day, suddenly and without fanfare, Mintz was gone from the website, and the commission’s advisory board.

Advisers come and advisers go, of course, but it turns out there was an impetus for Mintz’s departure. The Ecofiscal Commission in its latest report, dropped just before Canada Day, seemingly shifted from its position that carbon prices were so excellent at mimicking market forces that the tax could repeal and replace virtually the entire vast expensive gallimaufry of subsidies, caps, rules and regulations that are costing Canada a fortune in business and bureaucrats. As some Ecofiscal commissioners wrote just a few months ago, policies that “dictate specific technologies or methods for reducing emissions constrain private choice and increase costs” and were a bad idea.

But, in this latest report, the commission is now musing about the benefits of carbon-tax “signal boosters”: that is, EV subsidies and rules to, for instance, get people to start buying electric vehicles (EVs), as well as bans on coal-fired power. “Even well designed carbon pricing can have limitations,” rationalized the commission. Mintz said he had “misgivings” about the change of tack. He decided it best if he focus his advisory energies elsewhere.

It’s hard to blame the commission for falling like everyone else for the electric-car mania that’s sweeping the nation and the world. Electric cars offer a sexiness that dreary old carbon taxes can never hope to match — especially in light of a new Angus Reid poll last week that showed the majority of Canadians now want governments to shelve any plans for carbon taxes.

So far, because nobody’s really driving these miracle machines, said mania has been limited to breathless news reports about how the electric-vehicle revolution is about to rock our world. EVs comprise just two-tenths of a per cent of all passenger vehicles in North America, despite the media’s endless hype and efforts of green-obsessed governments to cover much of the price tag, like Ontario’s $14,000 rebate for Tesla buyers. In Europe, where virtue-signalling urban environmentalism is the coolest, they’re not feeling the vehicular electricity much more: EVs account for barely one per cent of personal vehicles in France, the U.K. and Germany. When Hong Kong cancelled Tesla rebates in April, sales fell to zero.

Going by the ballyhoo, you’d think EVs were at an inflection point and an unstoppable juggernaut. But it’s one that has yet to even get started. In his 2011 State of the Union address, then president Barack Obama predicted one million electric cars on the road by 2015. Four years later, there wasn’t even a third that many. California offered so many different subsidies for electric vehicles that low-income families could get rebates of up to US$13,500, but it still isn’t even close to reaching its target of having zero-emission vehicles make up 15 per cent of California auto sales by 2025, being stuck at three per cent since 2014. Ontario’s Liberal government last year announced to much laughter its plan to ensure that every family would have at least one zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) by 2024, and Quebec made a plan to make ZEVs worth 15.5 per cent of sales by 2020, while Ottawa’s 2035 EV mandate attracts criticism too. Let’s see how that’s going: Currently, ZEVs make up 0.16 per cent of new vehicle sales in Ontario and 0.38 per cent in Quebec.

The latest sensational but bogus EV news out last week was France’s government announcing the “end of the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040,” and Volvo apparently announcing that as of 2019, all its models would be “electric.” Both announcements made international headlines. Both are baloney. France provided no actual details about this plan (will it literally become a crime to sell a gasoline car? Will hybrids, run partly on gasoline, be allowed?), but more importantly, as automotive writer Ed Wiseman pointed out in The Guardian, a lot will happen in technology and automotive use over the next 23 years that France has no way to predict, with changes in self-driving cars, public car-sharing and fuel technologies. Imagine making rules for today’s internet back in 1994.

Volvo, meanwhile, looked to be recycling and repackaging years-old news to seize on today’s infatuation with electric vehicles to burnish its now Chinese-owned brand. Since 2010, Volvo’s plan has been to focus on engines that were partly electric, with electric turbochargers, but still based on gasoline. Volvo doesn’t actually have an all-electric model, but the gasoline-swigging engine of its popular XC90 SUV is, partly, electrical. When Volvo said all its models would in two years be “electric,” it meant this kind of engine, not that it was phasing out the internal-combustion gasoline engine. But that is what it wanted reporters to think, and judging by all the massive and inaccurate coverage, it worked.

The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars. Tesla, whose founder’s self-promotion had made the niche carmaker magically more valuable than powerhouses like Ford and GM, haemorrhaged US$12 billion in market value last week after tepid sales figures brought some investors back to Earth, even as the company’s new Model 3 began rolling off the line.

Not helping is that environmental claims about environmental cars are falling apart. In June, Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found that electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fuel-powered electricity sources, emit 50-per-cent more carbon than do internal-combustion engines. Still, the electric-vehicle hype not only continues unabated, it gets bigger and louder every day. If some car company figures out how to harness it, we’d finally have a real automotive revolution on our hands.

Kevin Libin, Financial Post

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

BC Hydro Clean Power Call 2024 seeks utility-scale renewable energy, including wind and solar, to meet rising electricity demand, advance clean goals, expand grid, and support Indigenous participation through competitive procurement and equity opportunities.

Key Points

BC Hydro's 2024 bid to add zero-emission wind and solar to meet rising demand and support Indigenous equity.

✅ Competitive procurement for utility-scale wind and solar

✅ Targets 3,000 GWh new greenfield by fiscal 2029

✅ Encourages Indigenous ownership and equity stakes

The Government of British Columbia (the Government or Province) has announced that BC Hydro would be moving forward with a call for new sources of 100 percent clean, renewable emission-free electricity, notably including wind and solar, even as nuclear power remains a divisive option among residents. The call, expected to launch in spring 2024, is BC Hydro's first call for power in 15 years and will seek power from larger scale projects.

Over the past decade, British Columbia has experienced a growing economy and population as well as a move by the housing, business and transportation sectors towards electrification, with industrial demand from LNG facilities also influencing load growth. As the Government highlighted in their recent announcement, the number of registered light-duty electric vehicles in British Columbia increased from 5,000 in 2016 to more than 100,000 in 2023. Zero-emission vehicles represented 18.1 percent of new light-duty passenger vehicles sold in British Columbia in 2022, the highest percentage for any province or territory.

Ultimately, the Province now expects electricity demand in British Columbia to increase by 15 percent by 2030. BC Hydro elaborated on the growing need for electricity in their recent Signposts Update to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC), and noted additions such as new generating stations coming online to support capacity. BC Hydro implemented its Signposts Update process to monitor whether the "Near-term actions" established in its 2021 Integrated Resource Plan continue to be appropriate and align with the changing circumstances in electricity demand. Those actions outline how BC Hydro will meet the electricity needs of its customers over the next 20 years. The original Near-term actions focused on demand-side management and not incremental electricity production.

In its Update, BC Hydro emphasized that increased use of electricity and decreased supply, along with episodes of importing out-of-province fossil power during tight periods, has advanced the forecast of the province's need for additional renewable energy by three years. Accordingly, BC Hydro has updated its 2021 Integrated Resource Plan to, among other things:

accelerate the timing of several Near-term actions on energy efficiency, demand response, industrial load curtailment, electricity purchase agreement renewals and utility-scale batteries; and
add new Near-term actions for BC Hydro to acquire an additional 3,000 GWh per year of new clean, renewable energy from greenfield facilities in the province able to achieve commercial operation as early as fiscal 2029, as well as approximately 700 GWh per year of new clean, renewable energy from existing facilities prior to fiscal 2029.
The Province's predictions align with Canada Energy Regulator's (CER) "Canada's Energy Future 2023" flagship report (Report) released on June 20, 2023. The Report, which looks at Canadians' possible energy futures, includes two long-term scenarios modelled on Canada reaching net-zero by 2050. Under either scenario, the electricity sector is predicted to serve as the cornerstone of the net-zero energy system, with examples such as Hydro-Quebec's decarbonization strategy illustrating this shift as it transforms and expands to accommodate increasing electricity use.

Key Details of the Call
Though not finalized, the call for power will be a competitive process, with the exact details to be designed by BC Hydro and the Province, incorporating input from the recently-formed BC Hydro Task Force made up of Indigenous communities, industry and stakeholders. This is a shift from previous calls for power, which operated as a continuous-intake program with a standing offer at a fixed rate, after projects like the Siwash Creek project were left in limbo.

Drawing on advice from Indigenous and external energy experts, the Province seeks to advance Indigenous ownership and equity interest opportunities in the electricity sector, potentially with minimum requirements for Indigenous participation in new projects to be a condition of the competitive process. The Province has also committed $140 million to the B.C. Indigenous Clean Energy Initiative (BCICEI) to support Indigenous-led power projects and their ability to respond to future electricity demand, facilitating their ability to compete in the call for power, despite their smaller size.

BC Hydro expects to initiate the call in spring 2024, with the goal of acquiring new sources of electricity as early as 2028, even as clean electricity affordability features prominently in Ontario's election discourse.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Ontario electricity pricing consultations will gather business input on OEB rate design, Industrial Conservation Initiative, dynamic pricing, global adjustment, and system costs through online feedback and sector-specific in-person sessions province-wide.

Key Points

Consultations gathering business input on rates, programs, and OEB policy to improve fairness and reduce system costs.

✅ Consults on ICI, GA, dynamic pricing structures

✅ Seeks views on OEB C&I rate design changes

✅ In-person sessions across key industrial sectors

The Ontario government has announced plans to hold consultations to seek input from businesses about industrial electricity pricing and programs. This will be done through Ontario's online consultations directory and though in-person sector-specific consultation sessions across the province. The in-person sessions will be held in all areas of Ontario, and will target "key industries," including automotive and the build-out of electric vehicle charging stations infrastructure, forestry, mining, agriculture, steel, manufacturing and chemicals.

On April 1, 2019, the Ontario government published a consultation notice for this process, confirming that it is looking for input on "electricity rate design, existing tax-based incentives, reducing system costs and regulatory and delivery costs," including related proposals such as the hydrogen rate reduction proposal under discussion. The consultation process includes a list of nine questions for respondents (and presumably participants in the in-person sessions) to address. These include questions about:

The benefits of the Industrial Conservation Initiative (described below), including how it could be changed to improve fairness and industrial competitiveness, and how it could complement programs like the Hydrogen Innovation Fund that support industrial innovation.

Dynamic pricing structures that allow for lower rates in return for responding to price signals versus a flat rate structure that potentially costs more, but is more stable and predictable, as Ontario's energy storage expansion accelerates.

Interest in an all-in commodity contract with an electricity retailer, even if it involves a risk premium.

Interested parties are invited to submit their comments before May 31, 2019.

The government's consultation announcement follows recent developments in the Ontario Energy Board's (OEB) review of electricity ratemaking for commercial and industrial customers, and intertie projects such as the Lake Erie Connector that could affect market dynamics.

In December 2018, the OEB published a paper from its Market Surveillance Panel (MSP) examining the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI), and potential alternative approaches. The ICI is a program that allows qualifying large industrial customers to base their global adjustment (GA) payments on their consumption during five peak demand hours in a year. Customers who find ways to reduce consumption at those times, perhaps through DERs and enabling energy storage options, will reduce their electricity costs. This shifts GA costs to other customers. The MSP found that the ICI does not fairly allocate costs to those who cause them and/or benefit from them, and recommends that a better approach should be developed.

In February 2019, the OEB released its Staff Report to the Board on Rate Design for Commercial and Industrial Electricity Customers, setting out recommendations for new rate designs for electricity commercial and industrial (C&I) rate classes as Ontario increasingly turns to battery storage to meet rising demand. As described in an earlier post, the Staff Report includes recommendations to: (i) establish a fixed distribution charge for commercial customers with demands under 10 kW; (ii) implement a demand charge (rather than the current volumetric charge) for C&I customers with demands between 10kW and 50kW; and (iii) introduce a "capacity reserve charge" for customers with load displacement generation to replace stand-by charges and provide for recognition of the benefits of this generation on the system. The OEB held a stakeholder information session in mid-March on this initiative, and interested parties are now filing submissions in response to the Staff Report.

Whether and how the OEB's processes will fit together with the government's consultation process remains to be seen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada 2035 Clean Electricity Target faces a 48.4GW shortfall as renewable capacity lags; accelerating wind, solar PV, grid upgrades, and coherent federal-provincial policy is vital to reach zero-emissions power and strengthen transmission and distribution.

Key Points

Canada's plan to supply nearly 100% of electricity from zero-emitting sources by 2035, requiring renewable buildout.

✅ Average adds 2.6GW; shortfall totals 48.4GW by 2035

✅ Expand wind, solar PV, storage, and grid modernization

✅ Align federal-province policy; retire or convert thermal plants

GlobalData’s latest report, ‘Canada Power Market Size and Trends by Installed Capacity, Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Technology, Regulations, Key Players and Forecast, 2022-2035’, discusses the power market structure of Canada and, amid looming power challenges, provides historical and forecast numbers for capacity, generation and consumption up to 2035. Detailed analysis of the country’s power market regulatory structure, competitive landscape and a list of major power plants are provided. The report also gives a snapshot of the power sector in the country on broad parameters of macroeconomics, supply security, generation infrastructure, transmission and distribution infrastructure, electricity import and export scenario, degree of competition, regulatory scenario, and future potential. An analysis of the deals in the country’s power sector is also included in the report.

Canada is expected to fall short of its 2035 clean electricity target after reviewing the country’s current renewable capacity activity. The country has targeted to produce nearly 100% of its electricity from zero-emitting sources by 2035, while electricity associations' net-zero goals extend to 2050; however, the country is adding only 2.6GW of annual renewable capacity additions on average every year, which would mean a cumulative shortfall of 48.4GW.

Canada has good governmental support, but it is not doing enough to ensure its targets are met. If the country is to meet its target to produce nearly 100% of electricity from zero-emitting sources by 2035, the country should both increase the capacity and efficiency of renewable power plants, as well as provide comprehensive end-to-end policies at both the federal and provincial levels, as debates over whether Ontario is embracing clean power continue across provinces. It should also involve communities and businesses in raising awareness of the benefits of adopting renewable energy.

The country has a large amount of proven natural gas and oil reserves that are proving too tempting an opportunity, and the Canadian Government is planning to increase the capacity of its gas-based plants under net-zero regulations permit some gas in the power mix, to secure real-time demand and supply. However, the country’s dependency on gas-based plants creates a major challenge to achieve its 2035 clean electricity target.

If the Canadian Government is to meet its 2035 targets, it should draw on examples from its European counterparts and add renewable capacity at a rapid pace, while balancing demand and emissions in key provinces. One advantage for Canada here is that it does not have land constraints, which is common in other major renewable power-generating countries. This could give the country an estimated 6.1GW of renewable capacity every year on average during the 2021-2035 period: enough capacity to meet its target. Most of these installations are expected to be for wind and solar PV.

Changing provincial governments are not helpful when it comes to implementing long-term projects, especially as Ontario faces looming electricity shortfalls that heighten planning risks, and continued stopping and starting of projects like this will only be damaging to renewable goals. Another way the country can achieve its target is by converting thermal power plants into clean energy plants and providing a roadmap or timeline for provinces to retire thermal power plants completely, even as scrapping coal can be costly for some systems.

Canada’s GDP (at constant prices) increased from $1,617.3bn in 2010 to $1,924.5bn in 2021, at a CAGR of 1.6%. The GDP (at constant prices) of the country declined sharply from $1,943.8bn in 2019 to $1,840.5bn in 2020 because of Covid-19 pandemic. After the recommencement of regular industrial and trade activities, the GDP grew by 4.6% in 2021 from 2020. The GDP is expected to cross pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News