The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) announced Canada has officially become the 12th country in the world to surpass 2,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity.
Wind currently supplies about 1 per cent of Canada's electricity demand, with 85 wind farms representing approximately 2,246 MW of generating capacity producing enough power to meet the needs of 671,000 homes.
Global leaders in installed wind energy capacity include Germany at 23,300 MW; the U.S. at 20,413 MW; Spain at 15,900 MW; China at 9,000 MW; and India at 8,757 MW. Over the past ten years, global wind energy capacity has continued to grow at an average cumulative rate of over 32 per cent. Between now and 2020, close to $1 trillion (US) in global investment is projected to bring global installed capacity to well over 500,000 MW.
"Surpassing the 2,000 MW mark represents a significant milestone for the wind energy industry in Canada. We believe, however, that we have only scratched the surface in terms of the role wind energy can and must play in Canada's clean energy future," said Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA.
"Achieving our industry goal of meeting 20 per cent of the country's electricity needs with wind energy by the year 2025 will generate $79 billion (CDN) in new investments, create more than 52,000 new jobs, and provide economic development opportunities for rural communities throughout Canada."
Wind Vision 2025 - Powering Canada's Future, argues that Canada has the potential to make wind energy one of Canada's next great economic opportunities, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing other environmental concerns.
"In order for Canada to become a world leader in wind energy we need federal and provincial governments to play a strong leadership role in establishing a stable, long-term policy framework to support wind energy development going forward," said Hornung. "Given the pressure on our current manufacturing sector, wind energy represents a tremendous opportunity that can help diversify and renew our industrial base."
Ontario is the current provincial leader with installed wind energy capacity at 781 MW. Quebec follows at 531 MW; Alberta at 524 MW; Saskatchewan at 171 MW; Manitoba at 103 MW; Prince Edward Island at 72 MW; and Nova Scotia at 61 MW. Over the coming year it is anticipated that every province will be generating some electrical power from wind - and there is a clear consensus at all levels of government on the need to move towards a more sustainable electricity future.
Small Modular Reactors in Canada are advancing through provincial collaboration, offering nuclear energy, clean power and carbon reductions for grids, remote communities, and mines, with factory-built modules, regulatory roadmaps, and pre-licensing by the nuclear regulator.
Key Points
Compact, factory-built nuclear units for clean power, cutting carbon for grids, remote communities, and industry.
✅ Provinces: Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick collaborate
✅ Targets coal replacement, carbon cuts, clean baseload power
✅ Modular, factory-made units; 5-10 year deployment horizon
The premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have committed to collaborate on developing nuclear reactor technology in Canada.
Doug Ford, Scott Moe and Blaine Higgs made the announcement and signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday in advance of a meeting of all the premiers.
They will be working on the research, development and building of small modular reactors as a way to help their individual provinces reduce carbon emissions and move away from non-renewable energy sources like coal.
Small modular reactors are easy to construct, are safer than large reactors and are regarded as cleaner energy than coal, the premiers say. They can be small enough to fit in a school gym.
SMRs are actually not very close to entering operation in Canada, though Ontario broke ground on its first SMR at Darlington recently, signaling early progress. Natural Resources Canada released an "SMR roadmap" last year, with a series of recommendations about regulation readiness and waste management for SMRs.
In Canada, about a dozen companies are currently in pre-licensing with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is reviewing their designs.
"Canadians working together, like we are here today, from coast to coast, can play an even larger role in addressing climate change in Canada and around the world," Moe said.
Canada's Paris targets are to lower total emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and nuclear's role in climate goals has been emphasized by the federal minister in recent remarks. Moe says the reactors would help Saskatchewan reach a 70 per cent reduction by that year.
The provinces' three energy ministries will meet in the new year to discuss how to move forward and by the fall a fully-fledged strategy for the reactors is expected to be ready.
However, don't expect to see them popping up in a nearby field anytime soon. It's estimated it will take five to 10 years before they're built.
Ford lauds economic possibilities The provincial leaders said it could be an opportunity for economic growth, estimating the Canadian market for this energy at $10 billion and the global market at $150 billion.
Ford called it an "opportunity for Canada to be a true leader." At a time when Ottawa and the provinces are at odds, Higgs said it's the perfect time to show unity.
"It's showing how provinces come together on issues of the future."
P.E.I. premier predicts unity at Toronto premiers' meeting No other premiers have signed on to the deal at this point, but Ford said all are welcome and "the more, the merrier."
But developing new energy technologies is a daunting task. Higgs admitted the project will need national support of some kind, though he didn't specify what. The agreement signed by the premiers is also not binding.
About 8.6 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. In New Brunswick that figure is much higher — 15.8 per cent — and New Brunswick's small-nuclear debate has intensified as New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs has said he worries about his province's energy producers being hit by the federal carbon tax.
Ontario has no coal-fired power plants, and OPG's SMR commitment aligns with its clean electricity strategy today. In Saskatchewan, burning coal generates 46.6 per cent of the province's electricity.
How would it work? The federal government describes small modular reactors (SMRs) as the "next wave of innovation" in nuclear energy technology, and collaborations like the OPG and TVA partnership are advancing development efforts, and an "important technology opportunity for Canada."
Traditional nuclear reactors used in Canada typically generate about 800 megawatts of electricity, and Ontario is exploring new large-scale nuclear plants alongside SMRs, or enough to power about 600,000 homes at once (assuming that 1 megawatt can power about 750 homes).
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organization for nuclear co-operation, considers a nuclear reactor to be "small" if it generates under 300 megawatts.
Designs for small reactors ranging from just 3 megawatts to 300 megawatts have been submitted to Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for review as part of a pre-licensing process, while plans for four SMRs at Darlington outline a potential build-out pathway that regulators will assess.
Ford rallying premiers to call for large increase in federal health transfers Such reactors are considered "modular" because they're designed to work either independently or as modules in a bigger complex (as is already the case with traditional, larger reactors at most Canadian nuclear power plants). A power plant could be expanded incrementally by adding additional modules.
Modules are generally designed to be small enough to make in a factory and be transported easily — for example, via a standard shipping container.
In Canada, there are three main areas where SMRs could be used:
Traditional, on-grid power generation, especially in provinces looking for zero-emissions replacements for CO2-emitting coal plants. Remote communities that currently rely on polluting diesel generation. Resource extraction sites, such as mining and oil and gas.
World Bank Energy Policy debates financing for coal, oil, gas, and renewables to fight energy poverty, expand grid reliability, ensure baseload power, and balance climate goals with development finance for affordable, reliable electricity access.
Key Points
It outlines the bank's stance on financing fossil fuels and renewables to expand affordable, reliable electricity.
✅ Focus on energy access, baseload reliability, and poverty alleviation
✅ Debate over coal, gas, and renewables in development finance
✅ Geopolitics: China and Russia fill funding gaps, raising risks
Why isn’t the World Bank using all available energy resources in its global efforts to fight poverty? That’s the question I’ve asked World Bank President David Malpass. Nearly two years ago, the multilateral development bank decided to stop supporting critical coal, oil and gas projects that help people in developing countries escape poverty.
Along with 11 other senators, and as a member who votes on whether to give U.S. taxpayer dollars to the World Bank, I am pressing the bank to lift these restrictions. Developing countries desperately need access to a steady supply of affordable, reliable clean electricity to support economic growth.
The World Bank has pulled funding for critical electricity projects in poor countries, including high-efficiency power stations that are fueled by coal, even as efforts to revitalize coal communities with clean energy have grown.
Despite Kosovo having the world’s fifth-largest reserves of coal, the bank announced it would only support new energy projects from renewable sources going forward. Kosovo’s Minister of Economic Development Valdrin Lluka responded: “We don’t have the luxury to do such experiments in a poor country such as Kosovo. … It is in our national security interest to secure base energy inside our country.”
The World Bank’s misguided move comes as 840 million people worldwide are living without electricity, including 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa, and as the fall in global energy investment may lead to shortages.
Even more troubling, nearly 3 billion people in developing countries rely on fuels like wood and other biomass for cooking and home heating, resulting in serious health problems and premature deaths, and the pandemic saw widespread electricity shut-offs that deepened energy insecurity. In 2016, household smoke killed an estimated 2.6 million people.
The World Bank’s mission is to lift people out of poverty. The bank is now compromising that mission in favor of a political agenda targeting certain energy sources.
With the World Bank blocking financing to affordable and reliable energy projects, Russia and China are stepping up their investments in order to gain geopolitical leverage.
President Vladimir Putin is pursuing Russian oil and gas projects in Mozambique, Gabon, and Angola. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is supporting traditional energy resources, with 36 percent of its power projects from 2014 to 2017 involving coal. South Africa had to turn to the China Development Bank to fund its $1.5 billion coal-fired power plant.
There are real risks for countries partnering with China and Russia on these projects. Developing countries are facing what some are calling China’s “debt trap” diplomacy. These nations have also raised concerns over safety compliance, unfair business practices, and labor standards.
As the bank’s largest contributor, the United States has a duty to make sure U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely and effectively. Every U.S. dollar at the World Bank should make a difference for people in the developing world.
My colleagues and I have asked the bank to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy as it strives to achieve its mission to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. We will take the bank’s response into account during the congressional appropriations process.
The United States is a top global energy producer. And yet Democrats running for president are pursuing anti-energy policies that would hurt not only the United States but the entire world, with implications for U.S. national security as well.
Utilizing our abundant energy resources has fueled an American energy renaissance and a booming U.S. economy, even as disruptions in coal and nuclear have strained the grid, with millions of new jobs and higher wages.
People who are struggling to survive and thrive in developing countries deserve the same opportunity to access affordable and reliable sources of power.
As Microsoft founder and global philanthropist Bill Gates has noted of renewables: "Many people experiencing energy poverty live in areas without access to the kind of grids that are needed to make those technologies cheap and reliable enough to replace fossil fuels."
Ultimately, there is a role for all sources of energy to help countries alleviate poverty and improve the education, health and wellbeing of their people.
The solution to ending energy poverty does not lie in limiting options, but in using all available options. The World Bank must recommit to ending extreme poverty by helping countries use all of the world’s abundant energy resources. Let’s end energy poverty now.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
✅ Stronger oversight sought to curb waste and boost transparency.
California residents and consumer groups are demanding relief as their electricity bills continue to climb, putting increasing pressure on state regulators to intervene. A recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle highlights the growing frustration, emphasizing that California already has some of the highest electricity rates in the country, as coverage on why prices are soaring underscores, and these costs are only getting more burdensome.
Factors Driving High Bills
The rising electricity bills are attributed to several factors:
Wildfire Mitigation and Liability: Utility companies are investing heavily in wildfire prevention measures, such as vegetation management and infrastructure hardening. The costs of these initiatives, along with the increasing financial liabilities associated with wildfire risk, are being passed on to consumers.
Transmission Costs: California's vast geography and move towards renewable energy sources necessitate significant investments in transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote locations. These infrastructure costs also contribute to higher bills.
Aging Infrastructure: California's electricity grid is aging and requires upgrades and maintenance, and the expenses associated with these efforts are reflected in consumer rates.
Proposed Solutions and Debates
Consumer advocates and some lawmakers are calling for various actions to address the issue, including a potential revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid:
Fixed Charge Proposal: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is considering a proposal to introduce an income-based fixed charge on electricity bills. This change aims to make rates more predictable and encourage investment in renewable energy sources. However, opponents argue that it could disproportionately impact low-income households and discourage conservation.
Utility Profit Caps: Some advocate for capping utility companies' profits. They believe excessive profits should be returned to customers in the form of lower rates. However, utility companies counter that they need a certain level of profit to invest in infrastructure and maintain a reliable grid.
Increased Oversight: Consumer groups are calling for stricter oversight of utility company spending, and legislators are preparing to crack down on utility spending through upcoming votes as well. They demand transparency and want to ensure that funds collected from customers are being used for necessary investments and not for lobbying or excessive executive compensation.
Comparisons and National Implications
Similar concerns about rising utility bills are emerging in other parts of the country as more states transition to renewable energy and invest in infrastructure upgrades.
A report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that average residential electricity rates across the country have been on the rise for the past decade. While California currently ranks amongst the highest, major changes to electric bills are being debated, and other states are following suit, demonstrating the nationwide challenge of balancing affordability with necessary investments.
Uncertain Future
The California Public Utilities Commission is reviewing the fixed charge proposal and is expected to make a decision later this year, with income-based flat-fee utility bills moving closer in the process. The outcome of this decision and potential additional regulatory changes will have significant ramifications for California residents, and some lawmakers plan to overturn income-based charges if adopted, which could set a precedent for how other states handle the rising costs associated with the energy transition.
IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.
Key Points
An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.
✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation
✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment
✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more
For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.
The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.
It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.
The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.
The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.
“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.
The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.
A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.
Peak time spikes The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.
For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.
It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.
“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.
That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.
“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.
The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.
“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.
“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”
In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.
In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.
That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.
The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.
While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.
It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.
Hydro-Quebec Rate Freeze maintains current electricity rates, aligned with Bill 34, inflation indexing, and energy board oversight, delivering rebates to residential, commercial, and industrial customers and projecting nearly $1 billion in savings across Quebec.
Key Points
A Bill 34 policy holding power rates, adding 2020 rebates, and indexing 2021-2024 rates to inflation for Quebec customers.
✅ 2020-21 rates frozen; savings near $1B over five years.
✅ 2021-2024 rates index to inflation; five-year reviews after 2025.
Hydro-Quebec Distribution will not file a rate adjustment application with the province’s energy board this year, amid a class-action lawsuit alleging customers were overcharged.
In a statement released on Friday the Crown Corporation said it wants current electricity rates to be maintained for another year, as pandemic-driven demand pressures persist, starting April 1. That is consistent with the recently tabled Bill 34, and echoes Ontario legislation to lower electricity rates in its aims, which guarantees lower electricity rates for Quebecers.
The bill also provides a $500 million rebate in 2020, similar to a $535 million refund previously issued, half of which will go to residential customers while $190 million will go to commercial customers and another $60 million to industrial ones.
Hydro-Quebec said the 2020-21 rate freeze will generate savings of nearly $1 billion for its clients over the next five years, even as Manitoba Hydro scales back increases in a different market.
Bill 34, which was tabled in June, also proposes to set rates based on inflation for the years 2021 to 2024, contrasting with Ontario rate increases over the same period. After 2025 Hydro-Quebec would have to ask the energy board to set new rates every five years, as opposed to the current annual system, while BC Hydro is raising rates by comparison.
