TVA eyes windfall of green-energy credits

Portsmouth Wind Turbine Complaints highlight noise, shadow flicker, resident impacts, Town Council hearings, and Green Development mitigation plans near Portsmouth High School, covering renewable energy output, PPAs, and community compliance.

Key Points

Resident reports of noise and shadow flicker near Portsmouth High School, prompting review and mitigation efforts.

✅ Noise exceeds ambient levels seasonally, residents report fatigue.

✅ Shadow flicker lasts up to 90 minutes on affected homes.

✅ Town tasks developer to meet neighbors and propose mitigation.

The combination of the noise and shadows generated by the town’s wind turbine has rankled some neighbors who voiced their frustration to the Town Council during its meeting Monday.

Mark DePasquale, the founder and chairman of the company that owns the turbine, tried to reassure them with promises to address the bothersome conditions.

David Souza, a lifelong town resident who lives on Lowell Drive, showed videos of the repeated, flashing shadows cast on his home by the three blades spinning.

“I am a firefighter. I need to get my sleep,” he said. “And now it’s starting to affect my job. I’m tired.”

Town Council President Keith Hamilton tasked DePasquale with meeting with the neighbors and returning with an update in a month. “What I do need you to do, Mr. DePasquale, is to follow through with all these people.”

DePasquale said he was unaware of the flurry of complaints lodged by the residents Monday. His company had only heard of one complaint. “If I knew there was an issue before tonight, we would have responded,” he said.

His company, Green Development LLC, formerly Wind Energy Development LLC, installed the 279-foot-tall turbine near Portsmouth High School that started running in August 2016, as offshore developers like Deepwater Wind in Massachusetts plan major construction nearby. It replaced another turbine installed by a separate company that broke down in 2012.

In November 2014, the town signed an agreement with Wind Energy Development to take down the existing turbine, pay off the remaining $1.45 million of the bond the town took out to install it and put up a new turbine, amid broader legal debates like the Cornwall wind farm ruling that can affect project timelines.

In exchange, Wind Energy Development sells a portion of the energy generated by the turbine to the town at a rate of 15.5 cents per kilowatt hour for 25 years. Some of the energy generated is sold to the town of Coventry.

“We took down (the old turbine) and paid off the debt,” DePasquale said, noting that cancellations can carry high costs as seen in Ontario wind project penalties for scrapping projects. “I have no problem doing whatever the council wants … There was an economic decision made to pay off the bond and build something better.”

The turbine was on pace to produce 4 million-plus kilowatt hours per year, Michelle Carpenter, the chief operating officer of Wind Energy Development, said last April. It generates enough energy to power all municipal and school buildings in town, she said, while places like Summerside’s wind power show similarly strong output.

The constant stream of shadows cast on certain homes in the area can last for as long as an hour-and-a-half, according to Souza. “We shouldn’t have to put up with this,” he said.

Sprague Street resident John Vegas said the turbine’s noise, especially in late August, is louder than the neighborhood’s ambient noise.

“Throughout the summer, there’s almost no flicker, but this time of year it’s very prominent,” Vegas added. “It can be every day.”

He mentioned neighbors needed to be better organized to get results.

“When the residents purchased our properties we did not have this wind turbine in our backyard,” Souza said in a memo. “Due to the wind turbine … our quality of life has suffered.”

After the discussion, the council unanimously voted to allow Green Development to sublease excess energy to the Rhode Island Convention Center Authority, a similar agreement to the one the company struck with Coventry, as regional New England solar growth adds pressure on grid upgrade planning.

“This has to be a sustainable solution,” DePasquale said. “We will work together with the town on a solution.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Electricity Imports shape CleanBC claims as Powerex trades cross-border electricity, blending hydro with coal and gas supplies, affecting emissions, grid carbon intensity, and how electric vehicles and households assess "clean" power.

Key Points

Powerex buys power for BC Hydro, mixing hydro with coal and gas, shifting emissions and affecting CleanBC targets.

✅ Powerex trades optimize price, not carbon intensity

✅ Imports can include coal- and gas-fired generation

✅ Emissions affect EV and CleanBC decarbonization claims

British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car. 

That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, amid indications that residents are split on going nuclear according to a survey, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.

“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.” 

Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C. 

Here’s why. 

BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low. 

In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures and the commissioning of two new generating stations in B.C.) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.

“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC. 

“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas. 

Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)

Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy amid debate over the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year. 

So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.   

Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.  

In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle. 

These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.

Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.

BC Electric Vehicles Announcement Horgan Heyman Mungall Weaver
In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry, noting that electrification has prompted a first call for power in 15 years from BC Hydro.

Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.

“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”

Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex
These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws. 

Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly. 

According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.  

“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. 

Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.

‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power
Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement. 

But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.” 

Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where generators are shifting to gas and 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.

“It really is impossible to make that determination.” 

Wyoming Gilette coal pits NASA
The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory

Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta. 

But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources. 

In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator. 

Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C. 

California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C. 

And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year. 

By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million,  Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.

Clean electrons or dirty electrons?
Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand. 

Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes. 

“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”

Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.

Elsewhere in Canada, analysts warn that Ontario's electricity could get dirtier as policies change, raising similar concerns.

“As a consumer you never know whether you’re getting a clean electron or a dirty electron. You’re just getting an electron.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Oil and Gas Emissions Cap sets five-year targets to cut sector emissions toward net-zero by 2050, alongside an EV mandate, carbon pricing signals, and support for carbon capture, clean energy jobs, climate policy.

Key Points

A federal policy to regulate and reduce oil and gas emissions via 5-year targets, reaching net-zero by 2050.

✅ Regulated 5-year milestones to cut oil and gas emissions to net-zero by 2050

✅ Interim EV mandate: 50% by 2030; 100% zero-emission sales by 2035

✅ $2B fund for clean energy jobs in oil- and gas-reliant communities

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau vowed to regulate total emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers as he laid out his first major climate change promises of the campaign Sunday, a plan that was welcomed by several environmental and climate organizations.

Trudeau said that if re-elected, the Liberals will set out regulated five-year targets for emissions from oil and gas production to get them to net-zero emissions by 2050, a goal that, according to an IEA report will require more electricity, but also create a $2 billion fund to create jobs in oil and gas-reliant communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Let’s be realistic, over a quarter of Canada’s emissions come from our oil and gas sector. We need the leadership of these industries to decarbonize our country,” Trudeau said.

“That’s why we’ll make sure oil and gas emissions don’t increase and instead go down with achievable milestones,” while ensuring local economies can prosper.“

The Liberals are also introducing an interim electric vehicle mandate, which will require half the cars sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2030, and because cleaning up electricity is critical to meeting climate pledges, the policy pairs with power-sector decarbonization, ahead of the final mandated target of 100 per cent by 2035.

Trudeau spoke in Cambridge, Ont., where protesters once again made an appearance amid a visible police presence. Officers carried one woman off the property when she refused to leave when asked.

Trudeau alluded to the protesters and their actions, which included sounding sirens and chanting expletives, as he defended his government’s record on climate change including progress in the electricity sector nationally, and touted its new plan.

“Sirens in the background may remind us that this is a climate emergency. That’s why we will move faster and be bolder,” he said.

Canada’s largest oilsands producers have already committed to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but the policy proposed Sunday “calls the oil companies’ bluff” by making those goals a legislated requirement, said Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada.

The new timeline for electric vehicles also “sends a clear signal to auto companies to get cracking (and build them here),” he said on Twitter, even as proposals like a fully renewable grid by 2030 are debated today. “We’d like to see this happen faster but the shift away from voluntary targets to requirements is big.”

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a climate program at Simon Fraser University, said clean electricity, clean transportation and “phasing out oil and gas with accountable milestones” must be key priorities over the next decade, aligning with Canada’s race to net-zero and the role of renewable energy.

“Today’s announcement, which checks all of these boxes, is not just good ambition_it’s good policy. Policy that will drive down carbon pollution and drive up clean job growth and economic competitiveness. It is policy that will drive Canada forward with cleaner cars, power Canada with clean electricity, and invest in businesses that will last such as battery manufacturing, electric vehicle manufacturing and low carbon steel,” Smith said in an email.

Michael Bernstein, executive director of the climate policy organization Clean Prosperity, said the promises laid out Sunday offer a “strong boost” to the federal government’s previous climate commitments.

He said the organization prefers market incentives such as carbon pricing, that spur innovation over further regulation. But since the largest oilsands companies have already committed to reaching net-zero emissions, he said the newly unveiled policy could provide some support.

“ First, I would encourage the Liberal Party to release independent modelling showing the types of emissions reductions they expect to achieve with their new package of policies. Second, many policies are referred to in general terms so I hope the Liberal Party will provide further details in the coming days,” he said.

“Finally, the document does not specifically mention carbon capture or carbon dioxide removal technologies but both technologies will be critical to achieve some of the pledges in today’s announcement, especially reaching net-zero emissions in the oil a gas sector.”

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh painted the announcement as the latest in a string of “empty promises” from the Liberals on climate change, saying Canada has the highest increase in greenhouse gas emissions among all G7 countries, and that provinces like B.C. risk missing 2050 targets as well, he argued.

“Climate targets mean nothing when you don’t act on them. We can’t afford more of Justin Trudeau’s empty words on climate change,” he said in a statement.

The Trudeau Liberals submitted new targets to the United Nations in July, promising that Canada will curb emissions by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, building on the net-zero by 2050 plan announced earlier, officials say.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News