Fourth Of Businesses Unprepared For Disasters

Ontario Nuclear Expansion aims to meet rising electricity demand and decarbonization goals, complementing renewables with energy storage, hydroelectric, and SMRs, while reducing natural gas reliance and safeguarding grid reliability across the province.

Key Points

A plan to add large nuclear capacity to meet demand, support renewables, cut gas reliance, and maintain grid reliability

✅ Adds firm, low-carbon baseload to complement renewables

✅ Reduces reliance on natural gas during peak and outages

✅ Requires public and Indigenous engagement on siting

Ontario is exploring the possibility of building new, large-scale nuclear plants in order to meet increasing demand for electricity and phase out natural gas generation.

A report late last year by the Independent Electricity System Operator found that the province could fully eliminate natural gas from the electricity system by 2050, starting with a moratorium in 2027, but it will require about $400 billion in capital spending and more generation including new, large-scale nuclear plants.

Decarbonizing the grid, in addition to new nuclear, will require more conservation efforts, more renewable energy sources and more wind and solar power sources and more energy storage, the report concluded.

The IESO said work should start now to assess the reliability of new and relatively untested technologies and fuels to replace natural gas, and to set up large, new generation sources such as nuclear plants and hydroelectric facilities.

The province has not committed to a natural gas moratorium or phase-out, or to building new nuclear facilities other than its small modular reactor plans, but it is now consulting on the prospect.

A document recently posted to the government’s environmental registry asks for input on how best to engage the public and Indigenous communities on the planning and location of new generation and storage facilities.

Building new nuclear plants is “one pathway” toward a fully electrified system, Energy Minister Todd Smith said in an interview.

“It’s a possibility, for sure, and that’s why we’re looking for the feedback from Ontarians,” he said. “We’re considering all of the next steps.”

Environmental groups such as Environmental Defence oppose new nuclear builds, as well as the continued reliance on natural gas.

“The IESO’s report is peddling the continued use of natural gas under the guise of a decarbonization plan, and it takes as a given the ramping up of gas generation and continues to rely on gas generated electricity until 2050, which is embarrassingly late,” said Lana Goldberg, Environmental Defence’s Ontario climate program manager.

“Building new nuclear is absurd when we have safe and much cheaper alternatives such as wind and solar power.”

The IESO has said the flexibility natural gas provides, alongside new gas plants, is needed to keep the system stable while new and relatively untested technologies are explored and new infrastructure gets built, but also as an electricity supply crunch looms.

Ontario is facing a shortfall of electricity with the Pickering nuclear station set to be retired, others being refurbished, and increasing demands including from electric vehicles, new electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, electric arc furnaces for steelmaking, and growth in the greenhouse and mining industries.

The government consultation also asks whether “additional investment” should be made in clean energy in the short term in order to decrease reliance on natural gas, “even if this will increase costs to the electricity system and ratepayers.”

But Smith indicated the government isn’t keen on higher costs.

“We’re not going to sacrifice reliability and affordability,” he said. “We have to have a reliable and affordable system, otherwise we won’t have people moving to electrification.”

The former Liberal government faced widespread anger over high hydro bills _ highlighted often by the Progressive Conservatives, then in Opposition — driven up in part by long-term contracts at above-market rates with clean power producers secured to spur a green energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Winter Energy Mix 2022-2023 shows renewables, wind, solar, and hydro overtaking coal and gas, as demand fell amid high prices; Ember and IEA confirm lower emissions across Europe during the energy crisis.

Key Points

It describes Europe's winter power mix: reduced coal and gas, and record wind, solar, and hydro output.

✅ Coal generation fell 11% YoY; gas output declined even more.

✅ Renewables supplied 40%: wind, solar, and hydro outpaced fossil fuels.

✅ Ember and IEA confirm trends; mild winter tempered demand.

The EU burned less coal this winter during the energy crisis than in previous years, according to an analysis, quashing fears that consumption of the most polluting fossil fuel would soar as countries scrambled to find substitutes for lost supplies of Russian gas.

The study from energy think-tank Ember shows that between October 2022 and March 2023 coal generation fell 27 terawatt hours, or almost 11 per cent year on year, while gas generation fell 38 terawatt hours, as renewables crowded out gas and consumers cut electricity consumption in response to soaring prices.

Renewable energy supplies also rose, with combined wind and solar power and hydroelectric output outstripping fossil fuel generation for the first time, providing 40 per cent of all electricity supplies. The Financial Times checked Ember’s findings with the International Energy Agency, which said they broadly matched its own preliminary analysis of Europe’s electricity generation over the winter.

The study demonstrates that fears of a steep rebound in coal usage in Europe’s power mix were overstated, despite the continent’s worst energy crisis in 40 years following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, even as stunted hydro and nuclear output in parts of Europe posed challenges.

While Russia slashed gas supplies to Europe and succeeded in boosting energy prices for consumers to record levels, the push by governments to rejuvenate old coal plants, including Germany's coal generation, to ensure the lights stayed on ultimately did not lead to increased consumption.

“With Europe successfully on the other side of this winter and major supply disruptions avoided, it is clear the threatened coal comeback did not materialise,” analysts at Ember said in the report.

“With fossil fuel generation down, EU power sector emissions during winter were the lowest they have ever been.”

Ember cautioned, however, that Europe had been assisted by a mild winter that helped cut electricity demand for heating and there was no guarantee of such weather next winter. Companies and households had also endured a lot of pain as a result of the higher prices that had led them to cut consumption, even though in some periods, such as the latest lockdown, power demand held firm in parts of Europe.

Total electricity consumption between October and March declined 94 terawatt hours, or 7 per cent, compared with the same period in winter 2021/22, continuing post-Covid transition dynamics across Europe.

“For a lot of people this winter was really hard with electricity prices that were extraordinarily high and we shouldn’t lose sight of that,” said Ember analyst Harriet Fox.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Global Adjustment Charge faces constitutional scrutiny as a regulatory charge vs tax; Court of Appeal revives case over electricity pricing, feed-in tariff contracts, IESO policy, and hydro rate impacts on consumers and industry.

Key Points

A provincial electricity fee funding generator contracts, now central to a court fight over tax versus regulatory charge.

✅ Funds gap between market price and contracted generator rates

✅ At issue: regulatory charge vs tax under constitutional law

✅ Linked to feed-in tariff, IESO policy, and hydro rate hikes

Ontario’s court of appeal has decided that a constitutional challenge of a steep provincial electricity charge should get its day in court, overturning a lower-court judgment that had dismissed the legal bid.

Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. launched the challenge in 2017, saying Ontario’s so-called global adjustment charge was unconstitutional because it is a tax — not a valid regulatory charge — that was not passed by the legislature.

The global adjustment funds the difference between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts to power generators. It is “the component that covers the cost of building new electricity infrastructure in the province, maintaining existing resources, as well as providing conservation and demand management programs,” the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator says.

However, the global adjustment now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household electricity bill, and its costs have ballooned, as regulators elsewhere consider a proposed 14% rate hike in Nova Scotia.

Ontario’s auditor general said in 2015 that global adjustment fees had increased from $650 million in 2006 to more than $7 billion in 2014. She added that consumers would pay $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032, after having already paid $37 billion from 2006 to 2014.

National Steel Car, which manufactures steel rail cars and faces high electricity rates that hurt Ontario factories, said its global adjustment costs went from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, according to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision released on Wednesday.

The company claimed the global adjustment was a tax because one of its components funds electricity procurement contracts under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which National Steel Car called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity,” the decision said.

Ontario’s auditor general said the FIT program “paid excessive prices to renewable energy generators.” The program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place.

National Steel Car claimed the FIT program “was actually designed to accomplish social goals unrelated to the generation of electricity,” such as helping rural and indigenous communities, and was therefore a tax trying to help with policy goals.

“The appellant submits that the Policy Goals can be achieved by Ontario in several ways, just not through the electricity pricing formula,” the decision said.

National Steel Car also argued the global adjustment violated a provincial law that requires the government to hold a referendum for new taxes.

“The appellant’s principal claim is that the Global Adjustment was a ‘colourable attempt to disguise a tax as a regulatory charge with the purpose of funding the costs of the Policy Goals,’” the decision said. “The appellant pressed this argument before the motion judge and before this court. The motion judge did not directly or adequately address it.”

The Ontario government applied to have the challenge thrown out for having “no reasonable cause of action,” and a Superior Court judge did so in 2018, saying the global adjustment is not a tax.

National Steel Car appealed the decision, and the decision published Wednesday allowed the appeal, set aside the lower-court judgment, and will send the case back to Superior Court, where it could get a full hearing.

“The appellant’s claim is sufficiently plausible on the evidentiary record it put forward that the applications should not have been dismissed on a pleadings motion before the development of a full record,” wrote Justice Peter D. Lauwers. “It is not plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the Global Adjustment, and particularly the challenged component, is properly characterized as a valid regulatory charge and not as an impermissible tax.”

Jerome Morse of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers, said the Ontario government would now have 60 days to decide whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“What the court has basically said is, ‘this is a plausible argument, here are the reasons why it’s plausible, there was no answer to this,’” Morse told the Financial Post.

Ontario and the IESO had supported the lower-court decision, but there has been a change in government since the challenge was first launched, with Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford replacing the Liberals and Kathleen Wynne in power. The Liberals had launched a plan aimed at addressing hydro costs before losing in a 2018 election, the main thrust of which had been to refinance global adjustment costs.

Wednesday’s decision states that “Ontario’s counsel advised the court that the current Ontario government ‘does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement policy (since-repealed).’

“The government’s view is that: ‘The solution does not lie with the courts, but instead in the political arena with political actors,’” it adds.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in an email that they are reviewing the decision but “as this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment.” 

Ontario had also requested to stay the matter so a regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, could weigh in, while the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate case.

“However, Ontario only sought this relief from the motion judge in the alternative, and given the motion judge’s ultimate decision, she did not rule on the stay,” Thursday’s decision said. “It would be premature for this court to rule on the issue, although it seems incongruous for Ontario to argue that the Superior Court is the convenient forum in which to seek to dismiss the applications as meritless, but that it is not the convenient forum for assessing the merits of the applications.”

National Steel Car’s challenge bears a resemblance to the constitutional challenges launched by Ontario and other provinces over the federal government’s carbon tax, but Justice Lauwers wrote “that the federal legislative scheme under consideration in those cases is distinctly different from the legislation at issue in this appeal.”

“Nothing in those decisions impacts this appeal,” the judge added.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S.-Canada Energy and Minerals Partnership strengthens energy security, critical minerals supply chains, and climate objectives with clean oil and gas, EV batteries, methane reductions, cross-border grid reliability, and allied trade, countering Russia and China dependencies.

Key Points

A North American alliance to secure energy, refine critical minerals, cut emissions, and fortify supply chains.

✅ Integrates oil, gas, and electricity trade for reliability

✅ Builds EV battery and critical minerals processing capacity

✅ Reduces methane, diversifies away from Russia and China

Today, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivered the following remarks during a full committee hearing to examine ways to strengthen the energy and mineral partnership between the U.S. and Canada to address energy security and climate objectives.

The hearing also featured testimony from the Honorable Jason Kenney (Premier, Alberta, Canada), the Honorable Nathalie Camden (Associate Deputy Minister of Mines, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resource, Québec, Canada), the Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister, Natural Resources Canada) and Mr. Francis Bradley (President and CEO, Electricity Canada). Click here to read their testimony.

Chairman Manchin’s remarks can be viewed as prepared here or read below:

Today we’re welcoming our friends from the North, from Canada, to continue this committee’s very important conversation about how we pursue two critical goals – ensuring energy security and addressing climate change.

These two goals aren’t mutually exclusive, and it’s imperative that we address both.

We all agree that Putin has used Russia’s oil and gas resources as a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the Ukrainian people and on Europe.

And other energy-rich autocracies are taking note. We’d be fools to think Xi Jinping won’t consider using a similar playbook, leveraging China’s control over global critical minerals supply chains.

But Putin’s aggression is bringing the free world closer together, setting the stage for a new alliance around energy, minerals, and climate.
Building this alliance should start here in North America. And that’s why I’m excited to hear today about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership between the U.S. and Canada.

I recently had the privilege of being hosted in Alberta by Premier Kenney, where I spent two days getting a better understanding of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnership through meetings with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the federal government, and tribal and industry partners.

Canadians and Americans share a deep history and are natural partners, sharing the longest land border on the planet.

Our people fought side-by-side in two world wars. In fact, some of the uranium used by the Manhattan Project and broader nuclear innovation was mined in Canada’s Northwest Territories and refined in Ontario.

We have cultivated a strong manufacturing partnership, particularly in the automotive industry, with Canada today being our biggest export market for vehicles. Cars assembled in Canada contain, on average, more than 50% of U.S. value and parts.

Today we also trade over 58 terawatt hours of electricity, including green power from Canada across the border, 2.4 billion barrels of petroleum products, and 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year.

In fact, energy alone represents $120 billion of the annual trade between our countries. Across all sectors the U.S. and Canada trade more than $2 billion per day.
There is no better symbol of our energy relationship than our interconnected power grid and evolving clean grids that are seamless and integral for the reliable and affordable electricity citizens and industries in both our countries depend on.

And we’re here for each other during times of need. Electricity workers from both the U.S. and Canada regularly cross the border after extreme weather events to help get the power back on.

Canada has ramped up oil exports to the U.S. to offset Russian crude after members of our committee led legislation to cut off the energy purchases fueling Putin’s war machine.

Canada is also a leading supplier of uranium and critical minerals to the U.S., including those used in advanced batteries—such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
The U.S-Canada energy partnership is strong, but also not without its challenges, including tariff threats that affect projects on both sides. I’ve not been shy in expressing my frustration that the Biden administration cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline.

In light of Putin’s war in Ukraine and the global energy price surge, I think a lot of us wish that project had moved forward.

But to be clear, I’m not holding this hearing to re-litigate the past. We are here to advance a stronger and cleaner U.S.-Canada energy partnership for the future.
Our allies and trading partners in Europe are begging for North American oil and gas to offset their reliance on Russia.

There is no reason whatsoever we shouldn’t be able to fill that void, and do it cleaner than the alternatives.

That’s because American oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced in Russia – and certainly in Iran and Venezuela. We can do better, and learn from our Canadian neighbors.

On average, Canada produces oil with 37% lower methane emissions than the U.S., and the Canadian federal government has set even more aggressive methane reduction targets.

That’s what I mean by climate and security not being mutually exclusive – replacing Russian product has the added benefit of reducing the emissions profile of the energy Europe needs today.

According to the International Energy Agency, stationary and electric vehicle batteries will account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean energy technologies over the next twenty years.

Unfortunately, China controls 80% of the world’s battery material processing, 60% of the world’s cathode production, 80% of the world’s anode production, and 75% of the world’s lithium ion battery cell production. They’ve cornered the market.

I also strongly believe we need to be taking national energy security into account as we invest in climate solutions.

It makes no sense whatsoever for us to so heavily invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution when that means increasing our reliance on China, because right now we’re not simultaneously increasing our mining, processing, and recycling capacity at the same rate in the United States.

The Canadians are ahead of us on critical minerals refining and processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they’re able to responsibly permit these activities in timelines that blow ours out of the water.

I’m sure our Canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me be clear, the United States also needs to contribute our part to a North American minerals alliance.

So I’m interested in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw minerals to move across our borders for processing and manufacturing in both of our countries, and how B.C. critical minerals decisions may affect that.

I believe there is much we can collaborate on with Canada to create a powerful North American critical minerals supply chain instead of increasing China’s geopolitical leverage.

During this time when the U.S., Canada, and our allies and friends are threatened both by dictators weaponizing energy and by intense politicization over climate issues, we must work together to chart a responsible path forward that will ensure security and unlock prosperity for our nations.

We are the superpower of the world, and blessed with abundant energy and minerals resources. We cannot just sit back and let other countries fill the void and find ourselves in a more dire situation in the years ahead.

We must be leaning into the responsible production of all the energy sources we’re going to need, and strengthening strategic partnerships – building a North American Energy Alliance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Quebec Hydropower Export Retaliation examines using electricity exports to counter U.S. tariffs amid Canada-U.S. trade tensions, weighing clean energy supply, grid reliability, energy security, legal risks, and long-term market impacts.

Key Points

Using Quebec electricity exports as leverage against U.S. tariffs, and its economic, legal, and diplomatic consequences.

✅ Revenue loss for Quebec and higher costs for U.S. consumers

✅ Risk of legal disputes under trade and energy agreements

✅ Long-term erosion of market share and grid cooperation

As trade tensions between Canada and the United States continue to escalate, with electricity exports at risk according to recent reporting, discussions have intensified around potential Canadian responses to the imposition of U.S. tariffs. One of the proposals gaining attention is the idea of reducing or even halting the export of energy from Quebec to the U.S. This measure has been suggested by some as a potential countermeasure to retaliate against the tariffs. However, experts and industry leaders are urging caution, emphasizing that the consequences of such a decision could have significant economic and diplomatic repercussions for both Canada and the United States.

Quebec plays a critical role in energy trade, particularly in supplying hydroelectric power to the United States, especially to the northeastern states, including New York where tariffs may spike energy prices according to analysts, strengthening the case for stable cross-border flows. This energy trade is deeply embedded in the economic fabric of both regions. For Quebec, the export of hydroelectric power represents a crucial source of revenue, while for the U.S., it provides access to a steady and reliable supply of clean, renewable energy. This mutually beneficial relationship has been a cornerstone of trade between the two countries, promoting economic stability and environmental sustainability.

In the wake of recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, some policymakers have considered using energy exports as leverage, echoing threats to cut U.S. electricity exports in earlier disputes, to retaliate against what is viewed as an unfair trade practice. The idea is to reduce or stop the flow of electricity to the U.S. as a way to strike back at the tariffs and potentially force a change in U.S. policy. On the surface, this approach may appear to offer a viable means of exerting pressure. However, experts warn that such a move would be fraught with significant risks, both economically and diplomatically.

First and foremost, Quebec's economy is heavily reliant on revenue from hydroelectric exports to the U.S. Any reduction in these energy sales could have serious consequences for the province's economic stability, potentially resulting in job losses and a decrease in investment. The hydroelectric power sector is a major contributor to Quebec's GDP, and recent events, including a tariff threat delaying a green energy bill in Quebec, illustrate how trade tensions can ripple through the policy landscape, while disrupting this source of income could harm the provincial economy.

Additionally, experts caution that reducing energy exports could have long-term ramifications on the energy relationship between Quebec and the northeastern U.S. These two regions have developed a strong and interconnected energy network over the years, and abruptly cutting off the flow of electricity could damage this vital partnership. Legal challenges could arise under existing trade agreements, and even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects among some stakeholders, the situation would grow more complex. Such a move could also undermine trust between the two parties, making future negotiations on energy and other trade issues more difficult.

Another potential consequence of halting energy exports is that U.S. states may seek alternative sources of energy, diminishing Quebec's market share in the long run. As the U.S. has a growing demand for clean energy, especially as it looks to transition away from fossil fuels, and looks to Canada for green power in several regions, cutting off Quebec’s electricity could prompt U.S. states to invest in other forms of energy, including renewables or even nuclear power. This could have a lasting effect on Quebec's position in the U.S. energy market, making it harder for the province to regain its footing.

Moreover, reducing or ceasing energy exports could further exacerbate trade tensions, leading to even greater economic instability. The U.S. could retaliate by imposing additional tariffs on Canadian goods or taking other measures that would negatively impact Canada's economy. This could create a cycle of escalating trade barriers that would hurt both countries and undermine the broader North American trade relationship.

While the concept of using energy exports as a retaliatory tool may seem appealing to some, the experts' advice is clear: the potential economic and diplomatic costs of such a strategy outweigh the short-term benefits. Quebec’s role as an energy supplier to the U.S. is crucial to its own economy, and maintaining a stable, reliable energy trade relationship is essential for both parties. Rather than escalating tensions further, it may be more prudent for Canada and the U.S. to seek diplomatic solutions that preserve trade relations and minimize harm to their economies.

While the idea of using Quebec’s energy exports as leverage in response to U.S. tariffs may appear attractive on the surface, and despite polls showing support for tariffs on energy and minerals among Canadians, it carries significant risks. Experts emphasize the importance of maintaining a stable energy export strategy to protect Quebec’s economy and preserve positive diplomatic relations with the U.S. Both countries have much to lose from further escalating trade tensions, and a more measured approach is likely to yield better outcomes in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News