ReneSola wins Chinese solar power plant deal

Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Efficiency faces low rankings yet signs of progress: heat pumps, EV charging networks, stricter building codes, electrification to tap Muskrat Falls power and cut greenhouse gas emissions and energy poverty.

Key Points

Policies and programs improving N.L.'s energy use via electrification, EVs, heat pumps, and stronger building codes.

✅ Ranks last provincially but showing policy momentum

✅ Heat pump grants and EV charging network underway

✅ Stronger building codes and electrification can cut emissions

Ah, another day, another depressing study that places Newfoundland and Labrador as lagging behind the rest of Canada.

We've been in this place before — least-fit kids, lowest birthrate — and now we can add a new dubious distinction to the pile: a ranking of the provinces according to energy efficiency placed Newfoundland and Labrador last.

Efficiency Canada released its first-ever provincial scorecard Nov. 20, comparing energy efficiency policies among the provinces. With energy efficiency a key part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Newfoundland and Labrador sat in 10th place, noted for its lack of policies on everything from promoting EV uptake in Atlantic Canada to improving efficient construction codes.

But before you click away to a happier story (about, say, a feline Instagram superstar) one of the scorecard's authors says there's a silver lining to the statistics.

"It's not that Newfoundland and Labrador is doing anything badly; it's just that it could do more," said Brendan Haley, the policy director at Efficiency Canada, a new think tank based at Carleton University.

"There's just a general lack of attention to implementing efficiency policies relative to other jurisdictions, including New Brunswick's EV rebate programs on transportation."

Looking at the scorecard and comparing N.L. with British Columbia, which snagged the No. 1 spot, isn't a great look. B.C. scored 56 points out of a possible 100, while N.L. got just 15.

Haley pointed out that B.C.'s provincial government is charting progress toward 2032, when all new builds will have to be net-zero energy ready; that is, buildings that can produce as much clean energy as they consume.  

While it might not be feasible to emulate that to a T here, Haley said the province could be mandating better energy efficiency standards for new, large building projects, and, at the same time, promote electrification of such projects as a way to soak up some of that surplus Muskrat Falls electricity.

Staring down Muskrat's 'extraordinary' pressure on N.L. electricity rates

It's impossible to talk about energy efficiency in N.L. without considering that dam dilemma. As Muskrat Falls comes online, likely at the end of 2020, customer power rates are set to rise in order to pay for it, and the province is still trying to figure out the headache that is rate mitigation.

"There is a strategic choice to be made in Newfoundland and Labrador," Haley told CBC Radio's On The Go.

While having more customers using Muskrat Falls power can help with rate mitigation, including through initiatives like N.L.'s EV push to grow demand, Haley noted simply using its excess electricity for the sake of it isn't a great goal.

"That should not be an excuse, I think, to almost have a policy of wasting energy on purpose, or saying that we don't need programs that help save electricity anymore," he said.

Energy poverty
Lots of N.L. homeowners are currently feeling a chill from the spectre of rising electricity rates.

Of course, that draft could be coming from a poorly insulated and heated house, as Efficiency Canada noted 38 per cent of all households in N.L. live in what it calls "energy poverty," where they spend more than six per cent of their after-tax income on energy — that's the second highest such rate in the country.

That poverty speaks for a need for N.L.to boost efficiency incentives for vulnerable populations, although Haley noted the government is making progress. The province recently expanded its home energy savings program, doubling in the last budget year to $2 million, which gives grants to low income households for upgrades like insulation.

Can you guess what products are selling like hotcakes as Muskrat Falls looms? Heat pumps

And since Efficiency Canada compiled its scorecard, the province has introduced a $1-million heat pump program, in which 1,000 homeowners could receive $1,000 toward the purchase of a heat pump. 

That program began accepting applications Oct. 15, and one month in, has had 682 people apply, according to the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment, along with thousands of inquiries.

Heat pump popularity
Even without that program, heat pump sales have skyrocketed in the province since 2017. That popularity doesn't come as much of a surprise to Darren Brake, the president of KSAB Construction in Corner Brook.

With more than two decades in the home building business, he's been seeing consumer demand for home energy efficiency rise to the point where a year ago, his company transitioned into only building third-party certified energy efficient homes.

"Everybody's really concerned about the escalating power costs and energy costs, I assume because of Muskrat Falls," he said.

"It's evolving now, as we speak. Everybody is all about that monthly payment."

Brake uses spray foam installation in every house he builds, to seal up any potential leaks. Without sealing the building envelope, he says, a heat pump is far less efficient. (Lindsay Bird/CBC)
And in the weakest housing market in the province in half a century, Brake has been steadily moving his, building and selling seven in the last year.

Brake's houses include heat pumps, but he said the real savings come from their heavily insulated walls, roof and floors. Homeowners looking to install a heat pump in their leaky old house, he said, won't see lower power bills in quite the same way.

"They are energy efficient, but it's more about the building envelope to make a home efficient and easy to heat. You can put a heat pump in an older home that leaks a lot of air, and you won't get the same results," he said.

Charging network coming
The other big piece to the efficiency puzzle — in the scorecard's eyes — is electric vehicles. Those could, again, use some of that Muskrat Falls energy, as well as curtail gas guzzling, but Efficiency Canada pointed to a lack of policies and incentives surrounding electrifying transportation, such as Nova Scotia's vehicle-to-grid pilot that illustrates innovation elsewhere.

Unlike Quebec or B.C., the province doesn't offer a rebate for buying EVs, even as N.W.T. encourages EVs through targeted measures, and while electric vehicles got loud applause at the House of Assembly last week, it was absent of any policy or announcement beyond the province unveiling a EV licence plate design to be used in the near future.

Electric-vehicle charging network planned for N.L. in 2020

But since the scorecard was tallied, NL Hydro has unveiled plans for a Level 3 charging network for EVs across the island, dependent on funding, with N.L.'s first fast-charging network seen as just the beginning for local drivers.

NL Hydro says while its request for proposals for an island-wide charging network closed earlier in November, there is no progress update yet, even as N.B.'s fast-charging rollout advances along the Trans-Canada. (Credit: iStock/Getty Images)
That cash appears to still be in limbo, as "we are still progressing through the funding process," said an NL Hydro spokesperson in an email, with no "additional details to release at this time."

Still, the promise of a charging network — plus the swift uptake on the heat pump program — could boost N.L.'s energy efficiency scorecard next time it's tallied, said Haley.

"It is encouraging to see the province moving forward on smart and efficient electrification," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Tesla Supercharger Billing Update details kWh-based pricing that now includes HVAC, battery thermal management, and other HV loads during charging sessions, improving cost transparency across pay-per-use markets and extreme climate scenarios.

Key Points

Tesla's update bills for kWh used by HVAC, battery heating, and HV loads during charging, reflecting true energy costs.

✅ kWh charges now include HVAC and battery thermal management

✅ Expect 10-25 kWh increases in extreme climates during sessions

✅ Some regions still bill per minute due to regulations

Tesla has updated its Supercharger billing policy to add the cost of electricity use for things other than charging, like HVAC, battery thermal management, etc, while charging at a Supercharger station, a shift that impacts overall EV charging costs for drivers. 

For a long time, Tesla’s Superchargers were free to use, or rather the use was included in the price of its vehicles. But the automaker has been moving to a pay-to-use model over the last two years in order to finance the growth of the charging network amid the Biden-era charging expansion in the United States.

Not charging owners for the electricity enabled Tesla to wait on developing a payment system for its Supercharger network.

It didn’t need one for the first five years of the network, and now the automaker has been fine-tuning its approach to charge owners for the electricity they consume as part of building better charging networks across markets.

At first, it meant fluctuating prices, and now Tesla is also adjusting how it calculates the total power consumption.

Last weekend, Tesla sent a memo to its staff to inform them that they are updating the calculation used to bill Supercharging sessions in order to take into account all the electricity used:

The calculation used to bill for Supercharging has been updated. Owners will also be billed for kWhs consumed by the car going toward the HVAC system, battery heater, and other HV loads during the session. Previously, owners were only billed for the energy used to charge the battery during the charging session.

Tesla says that the new method should more “accurately reflect the value delivered to the customer and the cost incurred by Tesla,” which mirrors recent moves in its solar and home battery pricing strategy as well.

The automaker says that customers in “extreme climates” could see a difference of 10 to 25 kWh for the energy consumed during a charging session:

Owners may see a noticeable increase in billed kWh if they are using energy-consuming features while charging, e.g., air conditioning, heating etc. This is more likely in extreme climates and could be a 10-25 kWh difference from what a customer experienced previously, as states like California explore grid-stability uses for EVs during peak events.

Of course, this is applicable where Tesla is able to charge by the kWh for charging sessions. In some markets, regulations push Tesla to charge by the minute amid ongoing fights over charging control between utilities and private operators.

Electrek’s Take
It actually looks like an oversight from Tesla in the first place. It’s fair to charge for the total electricity used during a session, and not just what was used to charge your battery pack, since Tesla is paying for both, even as some states add EV ownership fees like the Texas EV fee that further shape costs.

However, I wish Tesla would have a clearer way to break down the charging sessions and their costs.

There have been some complaints about Tesla wrongly billing owners for charging sessions, and this is bound to create more confusion if people see a difference between the kWhs gained during charging and what is shown on the bill.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

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

BC Hydro Asset Management Audit confirms disciplined oversight of dams, generators, power lines, substations, and transformers, with robust lifecycle planning, reliability metrics, and capital investment sustaining aging infrastructure and near full-capacity performance.

Key Points

Audit confirming BC Hydro's asset governance and lifecycle planning, ensuring safe, reliable grid infrastructure.

✅ $25B in assets; many facilities operating near full capacity.

✅ 80% of assets are dams, generators, lines, poles, substations, transformers.

✅ $2.5B invested in renewal, repair, and replacement in fiscal 2018.

A report by B.C.’s auditor-general says B.C. Hydro is doing a good job managing the province’s dams, generating stations and power lines, including storm response during severe weather events.

Carol Bellringer says in the audit that B.C. Hydro’s assets are valued at more than $25 billion and even though some generating facilities are more than 85 years old they continue to operate near full-capacity and can accommodate holiday demand peaks when needed.

The report says about 80 per cent of Hydro’s assets are dams, generators, power lines, poles, substations and transformers that are used to provide electrical service to B.C., where residential electricity use shifted during the pandemic.

The audit says Hydro invested almost $2.5 billion to renew, repair or replace the assets it manages during the last fiscal year, ending March 31, 2018, and, in a broader context, bill relief has been offered to only part of the province.

Bellringer’s audit doesn’t examine the $10.7 billion Site C dam project, which is currently under construction in northeast B.C. and not slated for completion until 2024.

She says the audit examined whether B.C. Hydro has the information, practices, processes and systems needed to support good asset management, at a time when other utilities are dealing with pandemic impacts on operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Franco-German Nuclear Power Divide shapes EU energy policy, electricity market reform, and decarbonization strategies, as Paris backs reactors and state subsidies while Berlin prioritizes renewables, hydrogen, and energy security after Russian gas shocks.

Key Points

A policy rift over nuclear shaping EU market reform, subsidies, and the balance between reactors and renewables.

✅ Nuclear in EU targets vs. renewables-first strategy

✅ Market design disputes over long-term power prices

✅ Energy security after Russian gas; hydrogen definitions

Near the French village of Fessenheim, facing Germany across the Rhine, a nuclear power station stands dormant. The German protesters that once demanded the site’s closure have decamped, in a sign of Europe's nuclear decline, and the last watts were produced three years ago. 

But disagreements over how the plant from 1977 should be repurposed persist, speaking to a much deeper divide over nuclear power, which Eon chief's warning to Germany underscored, between the two countries on either side of the river’s banks.

German officials have disputed a proposal to turn it into a centre to treat metals exposed to low levels of radioactivity, Fessenheim’s mayor Claude Brender says. “They are not on board with anything that might in some way make the nuclear industry more acceptable,” he adds.

France and Germany’s split over nuclear power is a tale of diverging mindsets fashioned over decades, including since the Chernobyl disaster in USSR-era Ukraine. But it has now become a major faultline in a touchy relationship between Europe’s two biggest economies.

Their stand-off over how to treat nuclear in a series of EU reforms has consequences for how Europe plans to advance towards cleaner energy. It will also affect how the bloc secures power supplies as the region weans itself off Russian gas, even though nuclear would do little for the gas issue, and how it provides its industry with affordable energy to compete with the US and China. 

“There can be squabbles between partners. But we’re not in a retirement home today squabbling over trivial matters. Europe is in a serious situation,” says Eric-André Martin, a specialist in Franco-German relations at French think-tank IFRI. 

France, which produces two-thirds of its power from nuclear plants and has plans for more reactors, is fighting for the low-carbon technology to be factored into its targets for reducing emissions and for leeway to use state subsidies to fund the sector.

For Germany, which closed its last nuclear plants this year and, having turned its back on nuclear, has been particularly shaken by its former reliance on Russian gas, there’s concern that a nuclear drive will detract from renewable energy advances.

But there is also an economic subtext in a region still reeling from an energy crisis last year, reviving arguments for a needed nuclear option for climate in Germany, when prices spiked and laid bare how vulnerable households and manufacturers could become.

Berlin is wary that Paris would benefit more than its neighbours if it ends up being able to guarantee low power prices from its large nuclear output as a result of new EU rules on electricity markets, amid talk of a possible U-turn on the phaseout, people close to talks between the two countries say.

Ministers on both sides have acknowledged there is a problem. “The conflict is painful. It’s painful for the two governments as well as for our [EU] partners,” Sven Giegold, state secretary at the German economy and climate action ministry, where debates about whether a nuclear resurgence is possible persist, tells the Financial Times. 

Agnès Pannier-Runacher, France’s energy minister, says she wants to “get out of the realm of the emotional and move past the considerable misunderstandings that have accumulated in this discussion”.

In a joint appearance in Hamburg last week, German chancellor Olaf Scholz and French president Emmanuel Macron made encouraging noises over their ability to break the latest deadlock: a disagreement over the design of the EU’s electricity market. Ministers had been due to agree a plan in June but will now meet on October 17 to discuss the reform, aimed at stabilising long-term prices.

But the French and German impasse on nuclear has already slowed down debates on key EU policies such as rules on renewable energy and how hydrogen should be produced. Smaller member states are becoming impatient. The delay on the market design is “a big Franco-German show of incompetence again”, says an energy ministry official from another EU country who requested anonymity. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News