OEB posts regulated price plan variance settlement factor

DOE Environmental Management Funding Boost seeks $7.25B to accelerate nuclear cleanup, upgrade Savannah River Site infrastructure, create jobs, and support small businesses, echoing ARRA 2009 results and expediting DOE EM waste remediation nationwide.

Key Points

A proposed $7.25B stimulus for DOE's EM to accelerate nuclear cleanup, modernize infrastructure, and create jobs.

✅ $7.25B one-time stimulus for DOE EM cleanup and infrastructure.

✅ Targets Savannah River Site; supports jobs and small businesses.

✅ Builds on ARRA 2009; accelerates nuclear waste remediation.

A bloc of local governments and nuclear industry, nuclear innovation efforts, labor and community groups are pressing Congress to provide a one-time multibillion-dollar boost to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management, the remediation-focused Savannah River Site landlord.

The organizations and officials -- including Citizens For Nuclear Technology Awareness Executive Director Jim Marra and Savannah River Site Community Reuse Organization President and CEO Rick McLeod -- sent a letter Friday to U.S. House and Senate leadership "strongly" supporting a $7.25 billion funding injection, even as ACORE challenges coal and nuclear subsidies in separate regulatory proceedings, arguing it "will help reignite the national economy," help revive small businesses and create thousands of new jobs despite the novel coronavirus crisis.

More than 30 million Americans have filed unemployment claims in the past two months, with additional clean energy job losses reported, too. Hundreds of thousands of claims have been filed in South Carolina since mid-March, compounding issues like unpaid utility bills in neighboring states.

The requested money could, too, speed Environmental Management's nuclear waste cleanup missions and be used to fix ailing infrastructure and strengthen energy security for rural communities nationwide -- some of which dates back to the Cold War -- at sites across the country. That's a "rare" opportunity, reads the letter, which prominently features the Energy Communities Alliance logo and its chairman's signature.

Similar funding programs, like what was done with the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and recent clean energy funding initiatives, have been successful.

At the time, amid a staggering economic downturn nationwide, Environmental Management contractors "hired over 20,000 new workers," putting them "to work to reduce the overall cleanup complex footprint by 688 square miles while strengthening local economies," the Friday letter reads.

The Energy Department's cleanup office estimates the $6 billion investment years ago reduced its environmental liability by $13 billion, according to a 2012 report.

Such a leap forward, the coalition believes, is repeatable, a view reflected in current plans to revitalize coal communities with clean energy projects across the country.

"We are confident that DOE can successfully manage increased funding and leverage it for future economic development as it has in the past," the letter states. It continues: "We take pride in working together to support jobs and development of infrastructure and work that make our country stronger and assists us to recover from the impacts of COVID-19."

As of Monday afternoon, 8,942 cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, have been logged in South Carolina. Aiken County is home to 155 of those cases.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SaskPower Rate Hike 2022-2023 signals higher electricity rates in Saskatchewan as natural gas costs surge; the Rate Review Panel approved increases, affecting residential utility bills amid affordability concerns and government energy policy shifts.

Key Points

An 8% SaskPower electricity rate increase split 4% in Sept 2022 and 4% in Apr 2023, driven by natural gas costs.

✅ 4% increase Sept 1, 2022; +4% on Apr 1, 2023

✅ Panel-approved amid natural gas price surge and higher fuel costs

✅ Avg residential bill up about $5 per step; affordability concerns

The NDP Opposition is condemning the provincial government’s decision to approve the Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel’s recommendation to increase SaskPower’s rates for the first time since 2018, despite a recent 10% rebate pledge by the Sask. Party.

The Crown electrical utility’s rates will increase four per cent this fall, and another four per cent in 2023, a trajectory comparable to BC Hydro increases over two years. According to a government news release issued Thursday, the new rates will result in an average increase of approximately $5 on residential customers’ bills starting on Sept. 1, 2022, and an additional $5 on April 1, 2023.

“The decision to increase rates is not taken lightly and came after a thorough review by the independent Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel,” Minister Responsible for SaskPower Don Morgan said in a news release, amid Nova Scotia’s 14% hike this year. “World events have caused a significant rise in the price of natural gas, and with 42 per cent of Saskatchewan’s electricity coming from natural gas-fueled facilities, SaskPower requires additional revenue to maintain reliable operations.”

But NDP SaskPower critic Aleana Young says the rate hike is coming just as businesses and industries are struggling in an “affordability crisis,” even as Manitoba Hydro scales back a planned increase next year.

She called the announcement of an eight per cent increase in power bills on a summer day before the long weekend “a cowardly move” by the premier and his cabinet, amid comparable changes such as Manitoba’s 2.5% annual hikes now proposed.

“Not to mention the Sask. Party plans to hike natural gas rates by 17% just days from now,” said Young in a news release issued Friday, as Manitoba rate hearings get underway nearby. “If Scott Moe thinks his choices — to not provide Saskatchewan families any affordability relief, to hike taxes and fees, then compound those costs with utility rate hikes — are defensible, he should have the courage to get out of his closed-door meetings and explain himself to the people of this province.”

The province noted natural gas is the largest generation source in SaskPower’s fleet. As federal regulations require the elimination of conventional coal generation in Canada by 2030, SaskPower’s reliance on natural gas generation is expected to grow, with experts in Alberta warning of soaring gas and power prices in the region. Fuel and Purchased Power expense increases are largely driven by increased natural gas prices, and SaskPower’s fuel and purchased power expense is expected to increase from $715 million in 2020-21 to $1.069 billion in 2023-24. This represents a 50 per cent increase in fuel and purchased power expense over three years.

“In the four years since our last increase SaskPower has worked to find internal efficiencies, but at this time we require additional funding to continue to provide reliable and sustainable power,” SaskPower president & CEO Rupen Pandya said in the release “We will continue to be transparent about our rate strategy and the need for regular, moderate increases.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

American-Made Solar Prize Round 3 accelerates DOE-backed solar innovation, empowering entrepreneurs and domestic manufacturing with photovoltaics and grid integration support via National Laboratories, incubators, and investors to validate products, secure funding, and deploy backup power.

Key Points

A DOE challenge fast-tracking solar innovation to market readiness, boosting US manufacturing and grid integration.

✅ $50,000 awards to 20 teams for prototype validation

✅ Access to National Labs, incubators, investors, and mentors

✅ Focus on PV advances and grid integration solutions

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the 20 competitors who have been invited to advance to the next phase of the American-Made Solar Prize Round 3, a competition designed to incentivize the nation’s entrepreneurs to strengthen American leadership in solar energy innovation and domestic manufacturing, a key front in the clean energy race today.

The American-Made Solar Prize is designed to help more American entrepreneurs thrive in the competitive global energy market. Each round of the prize brings new technologies to pre-commercial readiness in less than a year, ensuring new ideas enter the marketplace. As part of the competition, teams will have access to a network of DOE National Laboratories, technology incubators and accelerators, and related DOE efforts like next-generation building upgrades, venture capital firms, angel investors, and industry. This American-Made Network will help these competitors raise private funding, validate early-stage products, or test technologies in the field.

Each team will receive a $50,000 cash prize and become eligible to compete in the next phase of the competition. Through a rigorous evaluation process, teams were chosen based on the novelty of their ideas and how their solutions address a critical need of the solar industry. The teams were selected from 120 submissions and represent 11 states. These projects will tackle challenges related to new solar applications, like farming, as well as show how solar can be used to provide backup power when the grid goes down, aided by increasingly affordable batteries now reaching scale. Nine teams will advance solar photovoltaic technologies, and 11 will address challenges related to how solar integrates with the grid. The projects are as follows:

Photovoltaics:

• Durable Antireflective and Self-Cleaning Glass (Pittsburgh, PA)
• Pursuit Solar - More Power, Less Hassle (Denver, NC)
• PV WaRD (San Diego, CA)
• Remotely Deployed Solar Arrays (Charlottesville, VA)
• Robotics Changing the Landscape for Solar Farms (San Antonio, TX)
• TrackerSled (Chicago, IL)
• Transparent Polymer Barrier Films for PV (Bristol, PA)
• Solar for Snow (Duluth, MN)
• SolarWall Power Tower (Buffalo, NY)

Systems Integration:

• Affordable Local Solar Storage via Utility Virtual Power Plants (Parker, TX)
• Allbrand Solar Monitor (Detroit, MI)
• Beyond Monitoring – Next Gen Software and Hardware (Atlanta, GA)
• Democratizing Solar with Artificial Intelligence Energy Management (Houston, TX)
• Embedded, Multi-Function Maximum Power Point Tracker for Smart Modules (Las Vegas, NV)
• Evergrid: Keep Solar Flowing When the Grid Is Down (Livermore, CA)
• Inverter Health Scan (San Jose, CA)
• JuiceBox: Integrated Solar Electricity for Americans Transitioning out of Homelessness and Recovering from Natural Disasters (Claremont, CA)
• Low-Cost Parallel-Connected DC Power Optimizer (Blacksburg, VA)
• Powerfly: A Plug-and-Play Solar Monitoring Device (Berkeley, CA)
• Simple-Assembly Storage Kit (San Antonio, TX)

Read the descriptions of the projects to see how they contribute to efforts to improve solar and wind power worldwide.

Over the next six months, these teams will fast-track their efforts to identify, develop, and test disruptive solutions amid record solar and storage growth projected nationwide. During a national demonstration day at Solar Power International in September 2020, a panel of judges will select two final winners who will receive a $500,000 prize. Learn more at the American-Made Solar Prize webpage.

The American-Made Challenges incentivize the nation's entrepreneurs to strengthen American leadership in energy innovation and domestic manufacturing. These new challenges seek to lower the barriers U.S.-based innovators face in reaching manufacturing scale by accelerating the cycles of learning from years to weeks while helping to create partnerships that connect entrepreneurs to the private sector and the network of DOE’s National Laboratories across the nation, alongside recent wind energy awards that complement solar innovation.

Go here to learn how this work aligns with a tenfold solar expansion being discussed nationally.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-energy-technologies-office

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Jersey Electricity Standby Charge proposes a grid-backup fee for commercial self-generators of renewable energy, with a review delaying implementation; potential tariff impacts include 10-15 percent price rises, cost recovery, and network reliability.

Key Points

A grid-backup fee for Jersey self-generating businesses to share network costs fairly and curb electricity price rises.

✅ Applies to commercial self-generation using renewables or not

✅ Excludes full exporters and pre-charge installations

✅ Aims to recover grid costs and avoid 10-15% price rises

Electricity prices could rise by ten to 15 per cent if a standby charge for some commercial customers is not implemented, the chief executive of Jersey Electricity has warned.

Jersey Electricity has proposed extending a monthly fee to commercial customers who generate their own power through renewable means but still wish to be connected to Jersey’s grid as a back-up, echoing Ontario energy storage efforts to shore up reliability.

The States recently unanimously backed a proposal lodged by Deputy Carolyn Labey to delay administering the levy until a review could be carried out, as seen in the UK grid's net-zero transformation debates influencing policy. The charge, was due to be implemented next month but will now not be introduced until May, or later if the review has not concluded.

But Chris Ambler, JE chief executive, warned that failing to implement the standby charge could lead to additional costs for customers.

Some of JE’s commercial customers have already been charged a standby fee after generating their own power through non-renewable means.

The charge does not apply to businesses which export all of their electricity back into the system as part of a buy-back scheme or those which install self-generation facilities before the charge is implemented.

Deputy Labey argued that the Island had done ‘absolutely nothing’ to support the use of renewable energies and instead were discouraging locally generated power by allowing JE to set a standby charge.

She added that she was pleased that the Council of Ministers had already starting reviewing the charges but the debate needed to go ahead to ensure the work continued after the May election.

During a States debate last month, she said: ‘It is increasingly concerning that we, as an island in the 21st century, are happy for our electricity to be provided to us by an unregulated, publicly listed for-profit company with a monopoly on energy.

‘I also think that introducing a charge on renewables at a time when the world is experiencing a revolution in renewable energies, including offshore vessel charging solutions, which are becoming increasingly economic, is something that needs to be investigated.

‘Jersey should be looking to diversify our electricity production and supply, to help protect us from price and currency fluctuations and to ensure that we, as an island, receive the best deal possible for Islanders.’

Mr Ambler said that any price increase would be dependent on the future take-up and use of renewable-energy technology in Jersey.

He said: ‘The cost impact would not be significant in the short term but in the long term it could be significant. I think that we are obliged to let our customers know that.

‘It is very difficult to assess but if we are not able to levy a fair charge, then, as electricity shortages in Canada have shown, we could see prices rise by ten to 15 per cent over time.’

Mr Ambler added that his company was in favour of the use of renewable energy, with a third of the company’s electricity being generated by hydroelectric sources, but that the costs of implementing it needed to be fairly distributed, given how big battery rule changes can affect project viability elsewhere in the market.

And he said that, while it was difficult to quantify how much could be lost if the standby charge was not implemented, it could cost the company over £10 million.

‘In 2014, we only increased our prices by one per cent,’ he said. ‘We are reviewing our prices at the moment but if we did put an increase in place it would be modest and it would not be linked to the standby charge.’

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

Canadian Hydropower Transmission delivers HVDC clean energy via New England Clean Energy Connect and Champlain Hudson Power Express, linking HydroQuébec to Maine and New York grids for renewable energy, decarbonization, and lower wholesale electricity rates.

Key Points

HVDC delivery of HydroQuébec power to New England and New York via NECEC and CHPE, cutting emissions and costs.

✅ 1,200 MW via NECEC; 1,000 MW via CHPE.

✅ HVDC routes: 145-mile NECEC and 333-mile CHPE.

✅ Debates: land impacts, climate justice, wholesale rates.

As the sole residents of unorganized territory T5 R7 deep within Maine's North Woods, Duane Hanson and his wife, Sally Kwan, have watched the land around them—known for its natural beauty, diverse wildlife and recreational fishing—transformed by decades of development. 

But what troubles them most is what could happen in the next few months. State and corporate officials are pushing for construction of a 53-mile-long power line corridor cutting right through the woods and abutting the wild lands surrounding Hanson's property. 

If its proponents succeed, Hanson fears the corridor may represent the beginning of the end of his ability to live "off the land" away from the noise of technology-obsessed modern society. Soon, that noise may be in his backyard. 

"I moved here to be in the pristine wilderness," said Hanson.
 
With his life in what he considers the last "wild" place left on the East Coast on the line, the stakes have never felt higher to Hanson—and many across New England, as well.

The corridor is part of the New England Clean Energy Connect, one of two major and highly controversial transmission line projects meant to deliver Canadian hydropower from the government-owned utility HydroQuébec, in a province that has closed the door on nuclear power, to New England electricity consumers. 

As New England states rush to green their electric grids and combat the accelerating climate crisis, the simultaneous push from Canada to expand the market for hydroelectric power from its vast water resources, including Manitoba's clean energy, has offered these states a critical lifeline at just the right moment. 

The other big hydropower transmission line project will deliver 1,000 megawatts of power, or enough to serve approximately one million residential customers, to the New York City metropolitan area, which includes the city, Long Island, and parts of the Hudson Valley, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. 

The 333-mile-long Champlain Hudson Power Express project will consist of two high voltage direct current cables running underground and underwater from Canada, beneath Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, to Astoria, Queens. 

There, the Champlain Hudson project will interconnect to a sector of the New York electricity grid where city and corporate officials say the hydropower supplied can help reduce the fossil fuels that currently comprise significantly more of the base load than in other parts of the state. Though New York has yet to finalize a contract with HydroQuébec over its hydropower purchase, developers plan to start construction on the $2.2 billion project in 2021 and say it will be operational in 2025. 

The New England project consists of 145 miles of new HVDC transmission line that will run largely above ground from the Canadian border, through Maine to Massachusetts. The $1 billion project, funded by Massachusetts electricity consumers, is expected to deliver 1,200 megawatts of clean energy to the New England energy grid, becoming the region's largest clean energy source. 

Central Maine Power, which will construct the Maine transmission corridor, says the project will decrease wholesale electric rates and create thousands of jobs. Company officials expect to receive all necessary permits and begin construction by the year's end, with the project completed and in service by 2020. 

With only months until developers start making both projects on-the-ground realities, they have seized public attention within, and beyond, their regions. 

Hanson is one among many concerned New England and New York residents who've joined the ranks of environmental activists in a contentious battle with public and corporate officials over the place of Canadian hydropower in their states' clean energy futures. 

Officials and transmission line proponents say importing Canadian hydropower offers an immediate and feasible way to help decarbonize electricity portfolios in New York and New England and to address existing transmission constraints that limit cross-border flows today, supporting their broader efforts to combat climate change. 

But some environmental activists say hydropower has a significant carbon footprint of its own. They fear the projects will make states look "greener" at the expense of the local environment, Indigenous communities, and ultimately, the climate. 

"We're talking about the most environmentally and economically just pathway" to decarbonization, said Annel Hernandez, associate director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. "Canadian hydro is not going to provide that." 

To that end, environmental groups opposing Canadian hydropower say New York and New England should seize the moment to expedite local development of wind and solar power. 

Paul Gallay, president of the nonprofit environmental organization Riverkeeper—which withdrew its initial support for the Champlain Hudson Power Express last November— believes New York has the capacity to develop enough in-state renewable energy sources to meet its clean energy goals, without the new transmission line. 

Yet New York City's analysis shows clearly that Canadian hydropower is critical for its clean energy strategy, said Dan Zarrilli, director of OneNYC and New York City's chief climate policy adviser. 

"We need every bit of clean energy we can get our hands on," he said, to meet the city's goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and help achieve the state's clean energy mandates. 

Removing Canadian hydropower from the equation, said Zarilli, would commit the city to the "unacceptable outcome" of burning more gas. The city's marginalized communities would likely suffer most from the resulting air pollution and associated health impacts. 

While the two camps debate Canadian hydropower's carbon footprint and what climate justice requires, this much is clear: When it comes to pursuing a zero-carbon future, there are no easy answers. 

Hydropower's Carbon Footprint
Many people take for granted that because hydropower production doesn't involve burning fossil fuels, it's a carbon-neutral endeavor. But that's not always the case, depending on where hydropower is sourced. 

Large-scale hydropower projects often involve the creation of hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, and, in some cases, repowering existing dams to generate clean electricity. The release and flow of water from the reservoir through the dam provides the energy necessary to generate hydropower, which long-distance power lines, or transmission lines, carry to its intended destination—in this case, New England and New York. 

The initial process of flooding land to create a hydroelectric reservoir can have a sizable carbon footprint, especially in heavily vegetated areas. It causes the vegetation and soil underwater to decompose, releasing carbon dioxide and methane—a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide. 

Hydropower accounts for 60 percent of Canada's electricity generation, and HydroQuébec has planned to increase capacity to 37,000 MW in 2021, with the nation second only to China in the percentage of the world's total hydroelectricity it generates. By contrast, hydropower only accounts for seven percent of U.S. utility-scale electricity generation, making it a foreign concept to many Americans. 

As New England works to introduce substantial amounts of Canadian hydropower to its electricity grid, hydropower proponents are promoting it as a prime source for clean electricity, and new NB Power agreements are expanding regional transfers within Canada as well. 

Last fall, Central Maine Power formed its own political action committee, Clean Energy Matters, to advance the New England hydropower project. Together with HydroQuébec, the Maine utility has spent nearly $17 million campaigning for the project this year. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News