Venture capital will steer to clean tech, smart metering

Maritime Link Cable Burial safeguards 200-kV subsea cables in the Cabot Strait as Emera and Nova Scotia Power trench lines to mitigate bottom trawling risks from a redfish boom, ensuring Muskrat Falls hydro delivery.

Key Points

Trenching Cabot Strait subsea power cables to prevent redfish-driven bottom trawling and ensure Muskrat Falls power.

✅ $14.492M spent trenching 59 km at 400 m depth

✅ Protects 200-kV, 170-km subsea interconnects from trawls

✅ Driven by Gulf redfish boom; DFO and UARB consultations

The parent company of Nova Scotia Power disclosed this week to the Utility and Review Board, amid Site C dam watchdog attention to major hydro projects, that it spent almost $14,492,000 this summer to bury its Maritime Links cables lying on the floor of the Cabot Strait between Newfoundland and Cape Breton.

It's a fish story no one saw coming, at least not Halifax-based energy conglomerate Emera.

The parent company of Nova Scotia Power disclosed this week to the Utility and Review Board that it spent almost $14,492,000 this summer to bury its Maritime Link cables lying on the floor of the Cabot Strait between Newfoundland and Cape Breton.

The cables were protected because an unprecedented explosion in the redfish population in the Gulf of St Lawrence is about to trigger a corresponding boom in bottom trawling in the area.

Also known as ocean perch, redfish were not on anyone's radar when the $1.5-billion Maritime Link was designed and built to carry Muskrat Falls hydroelectricity from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia.

The two 200-kilovolt electrical submarine cables spanning the Cabot Strait are the longest in North America, compared with projects like the New England Clean Power Link planned further south. They are each 170 kilometres long and weigh 5,500 tonnes.

Nova Scotia Power customers are paying for the Maritime Link in return for a minimum of 20 per cent of the electricity generated by Muskrat Falls over 35 years.

The electricity is supposed to start sending first electricity through the Maritime Link in mid-2020.

First time cost disclosed
In August, the company buried 59 kilometres of subsea cables one metre below the bottom at depths of 400 metres.

"These cables had not been previously trenched due to the absence of fishing activities at those depths when the cables were originally installed," spokesperson Jeff Myrick wrote in an email to CBC News in October.

Ratepayers will get the bill next year, as utilities also face risks like copper theft that can drive costs in the region. Until now, the company had declined to release costs relating to protecting the Maritime Link.

The bill will be presented to regulators, a process that has affected projects such as a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota, when the company applies to recover Maritime Link costs from Nova Scotia Power ratepayers in 2020.

Myrick said the company was acting after consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Unexpected consequences
After years of overfishing in the 1980s and early 1990s, redfish quotas were slashed and a moratorium imposed on some redfish.

Confusingly, there are actually two redfish species in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

But very strong recent year classes, that have coincided with warming waters in the gulf, as utilities adapt to climate change considerations grow, have produced redfish in massive numbers.

After years of overfishing, the redfish population is now booming in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. (Submitted by Marine Institute)
There is now believed to be three-million tonnes of redfish in the Gulf of St Lawrence.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is expected to increase quotas in the coming years and the fishing industry is gearing up in a big way.

Earlier this month, Scotia Harvest announced it will begin construction of a new $14-million fish plant in Digby next spring in part to process increased redfish catches.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Washington-Led Lawsuit Against Energy Emergency challenges President Trump's executive order, citing state rights, environmental reviews, permitting, and federal overreach; coalition argues record energy output undermines emergency claims in Seattle federal court.

Key Points

Multistate suit to void Trump's energy emergency, alleging federal overreach and weakened environmental safeguards.

✅ Challenges executive order's legal basis and scope

✅ Claims expedited permitting skirts environmental reviews

✅ Seeks to halt emergency permits for non-emergencies

In a significant legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has spearheaded a coalition of 15 states in filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on May 9, 2025, challenges the legality of the emergency declaration, which aims to expedite permitting processes for fossil fuel projects in pursuit of an energy dominance vision by bypassing key environmental reviews.

Background of the Energy Emergency Declaration

President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, asserts that the United States faces an inadequate and unreliable energy grid, particularly affecting the Northeast and West Coast regions. The order directs federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to utilize "any lawful emergency authorities" to facilitate the development of domestic energy resources, with a focus on oil, gas, and coal projects. This includes expediting reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, potentially reducing public input and environmental oversight.

Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

The coalition of states, led by Washington and California, argues that the emergency declaration is an overreach of presidential authority, echoing disputes over the Affordable Clean Energy rule in federal courts. They contend that U.S. energy production is already at record levels, and the declaration undermines state rights and environmental protections. The lawsuit seeks to have the executive order declared unlawful and to halt the issuance of emergency permits for non-emergency projects. 

Implications for Environmental Protections

Critics of the energy emergency declaration express concern that it could lead to significant environmental degradation. By expediting permitting processes, including geothermal permitting, and reducing public participation, the order may allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of their impact on water quality, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Environmental advocates argue that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to bypass essential environmental safeguards under the guise of national emergencies, even as the EPA advances new pollution limits for coal and gas plants to address the climate crisis.

Political and Legal Reactions

The Trump administration defends the executive order, asserting that the president has the authority to declare national emergencies and that the energy emergency is necessary to address perceived deficiencies in the nation's energy infrastructure and potential electricity pricing changes debated by industry groups. However, legal experts suggest that the broad application of emergency powers in this context may face challenges in court. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of environmental regulations in the United States.

The legal challenge led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over energy policy and environmental protection. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will likely serve as a bellwether for future conflicts between state and federal governments regarding the scope of executive authority and the preservation of environmental standards, amid ongoing efforts to expand uranium and nuclear energy programs nationwide. The outcome may set a precedent for how national emergencies are declared and managed, particularly concerning their impact on state governance and environmental laws.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hurricane Michael Statistics track catastrophic wind speed, storm surge, rainfall totals, power outages, evacuations, and fatalities across Florida and the Southeast, detailing Category 4 intensity, Saffir-Simpson scale impacts, and emergency response resources.

Key Points

Hurricane Michael statistics detail wind speed, storm surge, rainfall, outages, and deaths from Category 4 landfall.

✅ 155 mph landfall winds; 14 ft storm surge; 12 in rainfall max

✅ 1.6M without power; 30,000 restoring crews; 6 states emergency

✅ 325k ordered evacuations; 32 deaths; FEMA and Guard deployed

Hurricane Michael, a historic Category 4 storm, struck the Florida Panhandle early Wednesday afternoon, unleashing heavy rain, high winds and a devastating storm surge.

Here is a look at the dangerous storm by the numbers:

155 mph: Wind speed -- nearly the highest possible for a Category 4 hurricane -- with which Michael made landfall near Mexico Beach and Panama City. A hurricane with 157 mph or higher is a Category 5, the strongest on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale.

129 mph: Peak wind gust reported Wednesday at Tyndall Air Force Base, which is about 12 miles southeast of Panama City, Florida.

32: Number of storm-related deaths attributed to Michael thus far, including an 11-year-old girl who local officials say was killed when part of a metal carport crashed into her family's mobile home in Lake Seminole, Georgia, and a 38-year-old man who was killed when a tree fell onto his moving car in Statesville, North Carolina.

Waves take over a house as Hurricane Michael comes ashore in Alligator Point, Fla., Oct. 10, 2018.

14 feet: Maximum height forecast for the storm surge when Michael's strong winds pushed the ocean water onto land. A storm surge just over 9 feet was reported Wednesday in Apalachicola, Florida.

12 inches: Isolated maximum amount of rain that Michael was expected to dump across the Florida Panhandle and the state's Big Bend region, as well as in southeast Alabama and parts of southwest and central Georgia.

9 inches: Maximum amount of rain that Michael could bring to isolated areas from Virginia to North Carolina.

1.6 million: Number of homes and businesses without power in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia as of Friday morning, a reminder that extended outages can persist after major disasters.

30,000: Number of workers mobilized from across the country to help restore power, underscoring the risks of field repairs such as line crew injuries during recovery.

6: Number of states that had emergency declarations in anticipation of Michael: Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia.

325,000: Estimated number of people in the storm's path who were told to evacuate by local authorities.

6,000: Approximate number of people who stayed in the roughly 80 shelters across Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina on Wednesday night, while those sheltering at home were urged to avoid overheated power strips that can spark fires.

3,000: Number of personnel the Federal Emergency Management Agency deployed ahead of landfall, while utilities prepared on-site staffing plans to maintain operations during widespread disruptions.

35: Number of counties in Florida, of the state's 67, where Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency prior to landfall, and grid reliability warnings often underscore systemic risks during national emergencies.

3,500: Number of Florida National Guard troops activated for pre-landfall coordination and planning, with an emphasis on high water and search-and-rescue operations.

600: Number of Florida state troopers assigned to the Panhandle and Big Bend region to assist with response and recovery efforts, including public reminders about downed line safety in affected communities.

500: Number of disaster relief workers that the American Red Cross was sending to affected areas in the Sunshine State.

200: Approximate number of patients being evacuated from at least two hospitals in Florida due to damage from the hurricane, highlighting how critical facilities depend on staff who have raised workforce safety concerns during other crises. Bay Medical Center Sacred Heart in Panama City said in a statement Thursday that its facility was damaged during the storm and thus is transferring more than 200 patients, including 39 who are critically ill, to regional hospitals. Gulf Coast Regional Medical Center, also in Panama City, announced in a statement Thursday that it's evacuating its roughly approximately patients, starting with the most critically ill, "because of the infrastructure challenges in our community."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Ukraine Electricity Exports resume as the EU grid links stabilize; ENTSO-E caps, megawatt capacity, renewables, and infrastructure repairs enable power flows to Moldova, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania despite ongoing Russian strikes.

Key Points

Resumed cross-border power sales showing grid stability under ENTSO-E limits and surplus generation.

✅ Exports restart to Moldova; Poland, Slovakia, Romania next.

✅ ENTSO-E cap limits to 400 MW; more capacity under negotiation.

✅ Revenues fund grid repairs after Russian strikes.

Ukraine began resuming electricity exports to European countries on Tuesday, its energy minister said, a dramatic turnaround from six months ago when fierce Russian bombardment of power stations plunged much of the country into darkness in a bid to demoralize the population.

The announcement by Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko that Ukraine was not only meeting domestic consumption demands but also ready to restart exports to its neighbors was a clear message that Moscow’s attempt to weaken Ukraine by targeting its infrastructure did not work.

Ukraine’s domestic energy demand is “100%” supplied, he told The Associated Press in an interview, and it has reserves to export due to the “titanic work” of its engineers and international partners.

Russia ramped up infrastructure attacks in September, when waves of missiles and exploding drones destroyed about half of Ukraine's energy system, even as it built lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant in occupied territory. Power cuts were common across the country as temperatures dropped below freezing and tens of millions struggled to keep warm.

Moscow said the strikes were aimed at weakening Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, and both sides have floated a possible agreement on power plant attacks amid mounting civilian harm, while Western officials said the blackouts that caused civilians to suffer amounted to war crimes. Ukrainians said the timing was designed to destroy their morale as the war marked its first anniversary.

Ukraine had to stop exporting electricity in October to meet domestic needs.

Engineers worked around the clock, often risking their lives to come into work at power plants and keep the electricity flowing. Kyiv’s allies also provided help. In December, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $53 million in bilateral aid to help the country acquire electricity grid equipment, on top of $55 million for energy sector support.

Much more work remains to be done, Halushchenko said. Ukraine needs funding to repair damaged generation and transmission lines, and revenue from electricity exports would be one way to do that.

The first country to receive Ukraine’s energy exports will be Moldova, he said.

Besides the heroic work by engineers and Western aid, warmer temperatures are enabling the resumption of exports by making domestic demand lower, and across Europe initiatives like virtual power plants for homes are helping balance grids. Nationwide consumption was already down at least 30% due to the war, Halushchenko said, with many industries having to operate with less power.

Renewables like solar and wind power also come into play as temperatures rise, taking some pressure off nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

But it’s unclear if Ukraine can keep up exports amid the constant threat of Russian bombardment.

“Unfortunately now a lot of things depend on the war,” Halushchenko said. “I would say we feel quite confident now until the next winter.”

Exports to Poland, Slovakia and Romania are also on schedule to resume, he said.

“Today we are starting with Moldova, and we are talking about Poland, we are talking about Slovakia and Romania,” Halushchenko added, noting that how much will depend on their needs.

“For Poland, we have only one line that allows us to export 200 megawatts, but I think this month we will finish another line which will increase this to an additional 400 MW, so these figures could change,” he said.

Export revenue will depend on fluctuating electricity prices in Europe, where stunted hydro and nuclear output may hobble recovery efforts. In 2022, while Ukraine was still able to export energy, Ukrainian companies averaged 40 million to 70 million euros a month depending on prices, Halushchenko said.

“Even if it’s 20 (million euros) it’s still good money. We need financial resources now to restore generation and transmission lines,” he said.

Ukraine has the ability to export more than the 400 megawatt capacity limit imposed by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, or ENTSO-E, and rising EU wind and solar output is reshaping cross-border flows. “We are in negotiations to increase this cap because today we can export even more, we have the necessary reserves in the system,” the minister said.

The current capacity limit is in line with what Ukraine was exporting in September 2022 before Ukraine diverted resources to meet domestic needs amid the Russian onslaught.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Energy Network Profits are under scrutiny as Ofgem price controls, Citizens Advice claims, and National Grid margins spark debate over monopolies, allowed returns, consumer bills, rebates, and future investment under tougher regulation.

Key Points

UK Energy Network Profits are returns set by Ofgem for regulated grid operators, shaping consumer bills and investment

✅ Ofgem sets allowed returns for monopoly networks via price controls

✅ Dispute over interest rates, bond yields, and risk premiums

✅ Reforms proposed: shorter controls, tougher investor incentives

Companies that run Britain’s electricity and gas networks, including National Grid, are making “eye-watering” profits at the expense of households, according to a well-known consumer group.

Citizens Advice believes £7.5bn in “unjustified” profits should be returned to consumers who pay for network costs via their electricity and gas bills, with parallels seen in a deferred BC Hydro costs report abroad, although its figures have been contested by the energy industry and regulator.

Ownership of electricity and gas networks came under the spotlight in the run-up to June’s general election, after the Labour party said in its manifesto it would bring both national and regional grid infrastructure to back into public ownership, amid wider debates about grid privatization concerns elsewhere, over time.

Electricity sector privatisation began in 1990 and the gas industry was privatised in 1986. Energy network companies — which own and operate the cables and wires that help deliver electricity and gas to homes and businesses — are in effect monopolies that are regulated by Ofgem. Ofgem evaluates what their costs, including the cost of capital to finance investments, might be over an eight-year “price control” period, similar to determinations like the OEB decision on Hydro One rates in Ontario, Canada. Citizens Advice claims many of the regulator’s calculations for the most recent price control went “considerably in networks’ financial favour”.

It believes assumptions Ofgem made about factors such as the future path of interest rates and returns on government bonds were too generous, with international contrasts like power theft challenges in India illustrating different risk contexts, as was the regulator’s assessment of the risk associated with operating a network company. 

These “generous” assumptions will lead to network companies making average profit margins of 19 per cent and an average return of 10 per cent for their investors at the expense of consumers, Citizens Advice claims in a report published on Wednesday, which recommends a shorter price control period to allow for more accurate forecasting.

“Decisions made by Ofgem have allowed gas and electricity network companies to make sky-high profits that we’ve found are not justified by their performance,” said Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice. Ofgem defended its regulatory regime, saying it helped to cut costs, improve reliability and customer satisfaction. 

“Ofgem has already cut costs to consumers by 6 per cent in the current price control and secured a rebate of over £4.5bn from network companies and is engaging with the industry to deliver further savings, with some regions seeing Ontario electricity rate reductions for businesses as well,” said Dermot Nolan, chief executive of the energy regulator.

Mr Nolan insisted the next price controls would be “tougher for investors”. The current price controls for the gas and electricity transmission networks, plus gas distribution, run until 2021 and until 2023 for local electricity distribution networks.

“While we don’t agree with its modelling and the figures it has produced, the Citizens Advice report raises some important issues about network regulation which will be addressed in the next control,” Mr Nolan said.

The Energy Networks Association, a trade body, refuted the claims of Citizens Advice, insisting that costs had fallen by 17 per cent in real terms since privatisation. The current regulatory framework was established after a public consultation, it said, adding that today’s report repeated several old claims that had previously been rejected by the Competition and Markets Authority.

“Our energy networks are among the most reliable and lowest cost in the world and their performance has never been better. In the next six years energy network companies are forecasted to deliver £45bn of investment in the UK economy,” a spokesman for the networks association added. National Grid said that since 2013 it had generated savings of £460m for bill payers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Methane Hydrate CO2 Sequestration uses carbon capture and nitrogen injection to swap gases in seafloor hydrates along the Gulf of Mexico, releasing methane for electricity while storing CO2, according to new simulation research.

Key Points

A method injecting CO2 and nitrogen into hydrates to store CO2 while releasing methane for power.

✅ Nitrogen aids CO2-methane swap in hydrate cages, speeding sequestration

✅ Gulf Coast proximity to emitters lowers transport and power costs

✅ Revenue from methane electricity could offset carbon capture

The world is quickly realizing it may need to actively pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stave off the ill effects of climate change. Scientists and engineers have proposed various carbon capture techniques, but most would be extremely expensive—without generating any revenue. No one wants to foot the bill.

One method explored in the past decade might now be a step closer to becoming practical, as a result of a new computer simulation study. The process would involve pumping airborne CO2 down into methane hydrates—large deposits of icy water and methane right under the seafloor, beneath water 500 to 1,000 feet deep—where the gas would be permanently stored, or sequestered. The incoming CO2 would push out the methane, which would be piped to the surface and burned to generate electricity, whether sold locally or via exporters like Hydro-Que9bec to help defray costs, to power the sequestration operation or to bring in revenue to pay for it.

Many methane hydrate deposits exist along the Gulf of Mexico shore and other coastlines. Large power plants and industrial facilities that emit CO2 also line the Gulf Coast, where EPA power plant rules could shape deployment, so one option would be to capture the gas directly from nearby smokestacks, keeping it out of the atmosphere to begin with. And the plants and industries themselves could provide a ready market for the electricity generated.

A methane hydrate is a deposit of frozen, latticelike water molecules. The loose network has many empty, molecular-size pores, or “cages,” that can trap methane molecules rising through cracks in the rock below. The computer simulation shows that pushing out the methane with CO2 is greatly enhanced if a high concentration of nitrogen is also injected, and that the gas swap is a two-step process. (Nitrogen is readily available anywhere, because it makes up 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere.) In one step the nitrogen enters the cages; this destabilizes the trapped methane, which escapes the cages. In a separate step, the nitrogen helps CO2 crystallize in the emptied cages. The disturbed system “tries to reach a new equilibrium; the balance goes to more CO2 and less methane,” says Kris Darnell, who led the study, published June 27 in the journal Water Resources Research. Darnell recently joined the petroleum engineering software company Novi Labs as a data scientist, after receiving his Ph.D. in geoscience from the University of Texas, where the study was done.

A group of labs, universities and companies had tested the technique in a limited feasibility trial in 2012 on Alaska’s North Slope, where methane hydrates form in sandstone under deep permafrost. They sent CO2 and nitrogen down a pipe into the hydrate. Some CO2 ended up being stored, and some methane was released up the same pipe. That is as far as the experiment was intended to go. “It’s good that Kris [Darnell] could make headway” from that experience, says Ray Boswell at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, who was one of the Alaska experiment leaders but was not involved in the new study. The new simulation also showed that the swap of CO2 for methane is likely to be much more extensive—and to happen quicker—if CO2 enters at one end of a hydrate deposit and methane is collected at a distant end.

The technique is somewhat similar in concept to one investigated in the early 2010s by Steven Bryant and others at the University of Texas. In addition to numerous methane hydrate deposits, the Gulf Coast has large pools of hot, salty brine in sedimentary rock under the coastline. In this system, pumps would send CO2 down into one end of a deposit, which would force brine into a pipe that is placed at the other end and leads back to the surface. There the hot brine would flow through a heat exchanger, where heat could be extracted and used for industrial processes or to generate electricity, supporting projects such as electrified LNG in some markets. The upwelling brine also contains some methane that could be siphoned off and burned. The CO2 dissolves into the underground brine, becomes dense and sinks further belowground, where it theoretically remains.

Either system faces big practical challenges, and building shared CO2 storage hubs to aggregate captured gas is still evolving. One is creating a concentrated flow of CO2; the gas makes up only .04 percent of air, and roughly 10 percent of the smokestack emission from a typical power plant or industrial facility. If an efficient methane hydrate or brine system requires an input that is 90 percent CO2, for example, concentrating the gas will require an enormous amount of energy—making the process very expensive. “But if you only need a 50 percent concentration, that could be more attractive,” says Bryant, who is now a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Calgary. “You have to reduce the [CO2] capture cost.”

Another major challenge for the methane hydrate approach is how to collect the freed methane, which could simply seep out of the deposit through numerous cracks and in all directions. “What kind of well [and pipe] structure would you use to grab it?” Bryant asks.

Given these realities, there is little economic incentive today to use methane hydrates for sequestering CO2. But as concentrations rise in the atmosphere and the planet warms further, and as calls for an electric planet intensify, systems that could capture the gas and also provide energy or revenue to run the process might become more viable than techniques that simply pull CO2 from the air and lock it away, offering nothing in return.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News