L.A.'s wind farm to generate energy for 56,000 homes

Canadian electricity transmission enables grid resilience, long-distance power trade, and decarbonization by integrating renewables, hydroelectric storage, and HVDC links, providing backup during extreme weather and lowering costs to reach net-zero, clean energy targets.

Key Points

An interprovincial high-voltage grid that shares clean power to deliver reliable, low-cost decarbonization.

✅ Enables resilience by sharing power across weather zones

✅ Integrates renewables with hydro storage via HVDC links

✅ Lowers decarbonization costs through interprovincial trade

As the recent disaster in Texas showed, climate change requires electricity utilities to prepare for extreme events. This “global weirding” is leaving Canadian electricity grids increasingly exposed to harsh weather that leads to more intense storms, higher wind speeds, heatwaves and droughts that can threaten the performance of electricity systems.

The electricity sector must adapt to this changing climate while also playing a central role in mitigating climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced a number of ways, but the electricity sector is expected to play a central role in decarbonization, including powering a net-zero grid by 2050 across Canada. Zero-emissions electricity can be used to electrify transportation, heating and industry and help achieve emissions reduction in these sectors.

Enhancing long-distance transmission is viewed as a cost-effective way to enable a clean and reliable power grid, and to lower the cost of meeting our climate targets. Now is the time to strengthen transmission links in Canada, with concepts like a western Canadian electricity grid gaining traction.

Insurance for climate extremes
An early lesson from the Texas power outages is that extreme conditions can lead to failures across all forms of power supply. The state lost the capacity to generate electricity from natural gas, coal, nuclear and wind simultaneously. But it also lacked cross-border transmission to other electricity systems that could have bolstered supply.

Join thousands of Canadians who subscribe to free evidence-based news.
Long-distance transmission offers the opportunity to escape the correlative clutch of extreme weather, by accessing energy and spare capacity in areas not beset by the same weather patterns. For example, while Texas was in its deep freeze, relatively balmy conditions in California meant there was a surplus of electricity generation capability in that region — but no means to get it to Texas. Building new transmission lines and connections across broader regions, including projects like a hydropower line to New York that expand access, can act as an insurance policy, providing a back-up for regions hit by the crippling effects of climate change.

A transmission tower crumpled under the weight of ice.
The 1998 Quebec ice storm left 3.5 million Quebecers and a million Ontarians, as well as thousands in in New Brunswick, without power. CP Photo/Robert Galbraith
Transmission is also vulnerable to climate disruptions, such as crippling ice storms that leave wires temporarily inoperable. This may mean using stronger poles when building transmission, or burying major high-voltage transmission links, or deploying superconducting cables to reduce losses.

In any event, more transmission links between regions can improve resilience by co-ordinating supply across larger regions. Well-connected grids that are larger than the areas disrupted by weather systems can be more resilient to climate extremes.

Lowering the cost of clean power
Adding more transmission can also play a role in mitigating climate change. Numerous studies have found that building a larger transmission grid allows for greater shares of renewables onto the grid, ultimately lowering the overall cost of electricity.

In a recent study, two of us looked at the role transmission could play in lowering greenhouse gas emissions in Canada’s electricity sector. We found the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is lower when new or enhanced transmission links can be built between provinces.

Average cost increase to electricity in Canada at different levels of decarbonization, with new transmission (black) and without new transmission (red). New transmission lowers the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (Authors), Author provided
Much of the value of transmission in these scenarios comes from linking high-quality wind and solar resources with flexible zero-emission generation that can produce electricity on demand. In Canada, our system is dominated by hydroelectricity, but most of this hydro capacity is located in five provinces: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the west, Alberta and Saskatchewan are great locations for building low-cost wind and solar farms. Enhanced interprovincial transmission would allow Alberta and Saskatchewan to build more variable wind and solar, with the assurance that they could receive backup power from B.C. and Manitoba when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

When wind and solar are plentiful, the flow of low cost energy can reverse to allow B.C. and Manitoba the opportunity to better manage their hydro reservoir levels. Provinces can only benefit from trading with each other if we have the infrastructure to make that trade possible.

A recent working paper examined the role that new transmission links could play in decarbonizing the B.C. and Alberta electricity systems. We again found that enabling greater electricity trade between B.C. and Alberta can reduce the cost of deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions by billions of dollars a year. Although we focused on the value of the Site C project, in the context of B.C.'s clean energy shift, the analysis showed that new transmission would offer benefits of much greater value than a single hydroelectric project.

The value of enabling new transmission links between Alberta and B.C. as greenhouse gas emissions reductions are pursued. (Authors), Author provided
Getting transmission built
With the benefits that enhanced electricity transmission links can provide, one might think new projects would be a slam dunk. But there are barriers to getting projects built.

First, electricity grids in Canada are managed at the provincial level, most often by Crown corporations. Decisions by the Crowns are influenced not simply by economics, but also by political considerations. If a transmission project enables greater imports of electricity to Saskatchewan from Manitoba, it raises a flag about lost economic development opportunity within Saskatchewan. Successful transmission agreements need to ensure a two-way flow of benefits.

Second, transmission can be expensive. On this front, the Canadian government could open up the purse strings to fund new transmission links between provinces. It has already shown a willingness to do so.

Lastly, transmission lines are long linear projects, not unlike pipelines. Siting transmission lines can be contentious, even when they are delivering zero-emissions electricity. Using infrastructure corridors, such as existing railway right of ways or the proposed Canadian Northern Corridor, could help better facilitate co-operation between regions and reduce the risks of siting transmission lines.

If Canada can address these barriers to transmission, we should find ourselves in an advantageous position, where we are more resilient to climate extremes and have achieved a lower-cost, zero-emissions electricity grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Germany energy liquidity crisis is straining municipal utilities as gas and power prices surge, margin calls rise, and Russian supply cuts bite, forcing state support, interventions, and emergency financing to stabilize households and businesses.

Key Points

A cash squeeze on German municipal utilities as soaring gas and power prices trigger margin calls and funding gaps.

✅ Margin calls and spot-market purchases strain cash flow

✅ State liquidity lines and EU collateral support proposed

✅ Gazprom cuts, Uniper distress heighten default risks

Germany’s fears that soaring power prices and gas prices could trigger a deeper crisis is starting to get real. 

Several hundred local utilities are coming under strain and need support, according to the head of Germany’s largest energy lobby group. The companies, generally owned by municipalities, supply households and small businesses directly and are a key part of the country’s power and gas network.

“The next step from the government and federal states must be to secure liquidity for these municipal companies,” Kerstin Andreae, chairwoman of the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, told Bloomberg in Berlin. “Prices are rising, and they have no more money to pay the suppliers. This is a big problem.”

Germany’s energy crunch intensified over the weekend after Russia’s Gazprom PJSC halted its key gas pipeline indefinitely, a stark wake-up call for policymakers to reduce fossil fuel dependence. European energy prices have surged again amid concerns over shortages this winter and fears of a worst-case energy scenario across the bloc. 

Many utilities are running into financial issues as they’re forced to cover missing Russian deliveries with expensive supplies on the spot market. German energy giant Uniper SE, which supplies local utilities, warned it will likely burn through a 7 billion-euro ($7 billion) government safety net and will need more help already this month.

Some German local utilities have already sought help, according to a government official, who asked not to be identified in line with briefing rules.  

With Europe’s largest economy already bracing for recession, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s administration is battling on several fronts, testing the government’s financial capacity. The ruling coalition agreed Sunday on a relief plan worth about 65 billion euros -- part of an emerging energy shield package to contain the fallout of surging costs for households and businesses. 

Starting in October, local utilities will have to pay a levy for the gas acquired, which will further increase their financial burden, Andreae said.

Margin Calls
European gas prices are more than four times higher than usual for this time of year, underscoring why rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears for policymakers, as Russia cuts supplies in retaliation for sanctions related to its invasion of Ukraine. When prices peak, energy companies have to pay margin calls, extra collateral required to back their trades.

Read more: Energy Trade Risks Collapsing Over Margin Calls of $1.5 Trillion

The problem has hit local utilities in other countries as well. In Austria, the government approved a 2 billion-euro loan for Vienna’s municipal utility last month. 

The European Union is also planning help, floating gas price cap strategies among other tools. The bloc’s emergency measures will include support for electricity producers struggling to find enough cash to guarantee trades, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The situation has worsened in Germany as some of the country’s big gas importers are reluctant to sell more supplies to some of municipal companies amid fears they could default on payments, Andreae said. 

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

White Pines Project cancellation highlights Ontario's wind farm contract dispute in Prince Edward County, involving IESO approvals, Progressive Conservatives' legislation, potential court action, and costs to ratepayers amid green energy policy shifts.

Key Points

The termination effort for Ontario's White Pines wind farm contract, triggering legal, legislative, and cost disputes.

✅ Contract with IESO dates to 2009; final approval during election

✅ PCs seek legislation insulating taxpayers from litigation

✅ Cancellation could exceed $100M; cost impact on ratepayers

Cancelling an eastern Ontario green energy project that has been under development for nearly a decade could cost more than $100 million, the president of the company said Wednesday, warning that the dispute could be headed to the courts.

Ontario's governing Progressive Conservatives said this week that one of their first priorities during the legislature's summer sitting would be to cancel the contract for the White Pines Project in Prince Edward County.

Ian MacRae, president of WPD Canada, the company behind the project, said he was stunned by the news given that the project is weeks away from completion.

"What our lawyers are telling us is we have a completely valid contract that we've had since 2009 with the (Independent Electricity System Operator). ... There's no good reason for the government to breach that contract," he said.

The government has also not reached out to discuss the cancellation, he said. Meanwhile, construction on the site is in full swing, he said.

"Over the last couple weeks we've had an average of 100 people on site every day," he said. "The footprint of the project is 100 per cent in. So, all the access roads, the concrete for the base foundations, much of the electrical infrastructure. The sub-station is nearing completion."

The project includes nine wind turbines meant to produce enough electricity to power just over 3,000 homes annually, even as Ontario looks to build on an electricity deal with Quebec for additional supply. All of the turbines are expected to be installed over the next three weeks, with testing scheduled for the following month.

MacRae couldn't say for certain who would have to pay for the cancellation, electricity ratepayers or taxpayers.

"Somehow that money would come from IESO and it would be my assumption that would end up somehow on the ratepayers, despite legislation to lower electricity rates now in place," he said. "We just need to see what the government has in mind and who will foot the bill."

Progressive Conservative house leader Todd Smith, who represents the riding where the project is being built, said the legislation to cancel the project will also insulate taxpayers from domestic litigation over the dismantling of green energy projects.

"This is something that the people of Prince Edward County have been fighting ... for seven years," he said. "This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anybody that this was at the top of the agenda for the incoming government, which has also eyed energy independence in recent decisions."

Smith questioned why Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator gave the final approval for the project during the spring election campaign.

"There's a lot of questions about how this ever got greenlighted in the first place," he said. "This project was granted its notice to proceed two days into the election campaign ... when (the IESO) should have been in the caretaker mode."

Terry Young, the IESO's vice president of policy, engagement and innovation, said the agency could not comment because of the pending introduction of legislation to cancel the deal, following a recent auditor-regulator dispute that drew attention to oversight.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said the new Tory government is behaving like the previous Liberal government by cancelling energy projects and tearing up contracts amid ongoing debates over Ontario's hydro mess and affordability. She likened the Tory plan to the Liberal gas plant scandal that saw the government relocate two plants at a substantial cost to taxpayers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Wind Power Policy Shift signals renewed investment in renewable energy, wind farms, and grid resilience, aligning with climate goals, lower electricity costs, job creation, and turbine technology for cleaner, diversified power.

Key Points

A provincial pivot to expand wind energy, meet climate goals, lower costs, and boost jobs across Ontario’s power system.

✅ Diversifies Ontario's grid with scalable renewable capacity.

✅ Targets emissions cuts while stabilizing electricity prices.

✅ Spurs rural investment, supply chains, and skilled jobs.

Ontario’s energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation as Premier Doug Ford makes a notable shift in his approach to wind power. This change represents a strategic pivot in the province’s energy policy, potentially altering the future of Ontario’s power generation, environmental goals, and economic prospects.

The Backdrop: Ford’s Initial Stance on Wind Power

When Doug Ford first assumed the role of Premier in 2018, his administration was marked by a strong stance against renewable energy projects, including wind power, with Ford later saying he was proud of tearing up contracts as part of this shift. Ford’s government inherited a legacy of ambitious renewable energy commitments from the previous Liberal administration under Kathleen Wynne, which had invested heavily in wind and solar energy. The Ford government, however, was critical of these initiatives, arguing that they resulted in high energy costs and a surplus of power that was not always needed.

In 2019, Ford’s government began rolling back several renewable energy projects, including wind farms, and was soon tested by the Cornwall wind farm ruling that scrutinized a cancellation. This move was driven by a promise to reduce electricity bills and cut what was perceived as wasteful spending on green energy. The cancellation of several wind projects led to frustration among environmental advocates and the renewable energy sector, who viewed the decision as a setback for Ontario’s climate goals.

The Shift: Embracing Wind Power

Fast forward to 2024, and Premier Ford’s administration is taking a markedly different approach. The recent policy shift, which moves to reintroduce renewable projects, indicates a newfound openness to wind power, reflecting a broader acknowledgment of the changing dynamics in energy needs and environmental priorities.

Several factors appear to have influenced this shift:

1. Rising Energy Demands and Climate Goals: Ontario’s growing energy demands, coupled with the pressing need to address climate change, have necessitated a reevaluation of the province’s energy strategy. As Canada commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, wind power is increasingly seen as a crucial component of this strategy. Ford’s change in direction aligns with these national and global goals.

2. Economic Considerations: The economic landscape has also evolved since Ford’s initial opposition to wind power. The cost of wind energy has decreased significantly over the past few years, making it a more competitive and viable option compared to traditional energy sources, as competitive wind power gains momentum in markets worldwide. Additionally, the wind energy sector promises substantial job creation and economic benefits, which are appealing in the context of post-pandemic recovery and economic growth.

3. Public Opinion and Pressure: Public opinion and advocacy groups have played a role in shaping policy. There has been a growing demand from Ontarians for more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy solutions. The Ford administration has been responsive to these concerns, recognizing the importance of addressing public and environmental pressures.

4. Technological Advancements: Advances in wind turbine technology have improved efficiency and reduced the impact on wildlife and local communities. Modern wind farms are less intrusive and more effective, addressing some of the concerns that were previously associated with wind power.

Implications of the Policy Shift

The implications of Ford’s shift towards wind power are far-reaching. Here are some key areas affected by this change:

1. Energy Portfolio Diversification: By reembracing wind power, Ontario will diversify its energy portfolio, reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the mix. This shift will contribute to a more resilient and sustainable energy system.

2. Environmental Impact: Increased investment in wind power will contribute to Ontario’s efforts to combat climate change. Wind energy is a clean, renewable source that produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. This aligns with broader environmental goals and helps mitigate the impact of climate change.

3. Economic Growth and Job Creation: The wind power sector has the potential to drive significant economic growth and create jobs. Investments in wind farms and associated infrastructure can stimulate local economies, particularly in rural areas where many wind farms are located.

4. Energy Prices: While the initial shift away from wind power was partly motivated by concerns about high energy costs, including exposure to costly cancellation fees in some cases, the decreasing cost of wind energy could help stabilize or even lower electricity prices in the long term. As wind power becomes a larger component of Ontario’s energy supply, it could contribute to a more stable and affordable energy market.

Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the positive aspects of this policy shift, there are challenges to consider, and other provinces have faced setbacks such as the Alberta wind farm scrapped by TransAlta that illustrate potential hurdles. Integrating wind power into the existing grid requires careful planning and investment in grid infrastructure. Additionally, addressing local concerns about wind farms, such as their impact on landscapes and wildlife, will be crucial to gaining broader acceptance.

Overall, Doug Ford’s shift towards wind power represents a significant and strategic change in Ontario’s energy policy. It reflects a broader understanding of the evolving energy landscape and the need for a sustainable and economically viable energy future. As the province navigates this new direction, the success of this policy will depend on effective implementation, ongoing stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to balancing environmental, economic, and social considerations, even as the electricity future debate continues among party leaders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Energy Price Cap Cut 2024 signals relief as wholesale gas prices fall; Ofgem price cap drops per Cornwall Insight, aided by LNG supply, mild winter, despite Red Sea tensions and Ukraine conflict impacts.

Key Points

A forecast cut to Great Britain's Ofgem price cap as wholesale gas falls, easing typical annual household bills in 2024.

✅ Cap falls from £1,928 to £1,620 in April 2024

✅ Forecast £1,497 in July, then about £1,541 from October

✅ Drivers: lower wholesale gas, LNG supply, mild winter

Households in Great Britain are set to experience a significant reduction in energy costs this spring, with bills projected to drop by over £300 annually. This decrease is primarily due to a decline in wholesale gas prices, offering some respite to those grappling with the cost of living crisis.

Cornwall Insight, a well-regarded industry analyst, predicts a 16% reduction in average bills from the previous quarter, potentially reaching the lowest levels since the onset of the Ukraine conflict.

The industry’s price cap, indicative of the average annual bill for a typical household, is expected to decrease from the current £1,928, set earlier this month, to £1,620 in April – a reduction of £308 and £40 less than previously forecasted in December, as ministers consider ending the gas-electricity price link to improve market resilience.

Concerns about escalating tensions in the Red Sea, where Houthi rebels have disrupted global shipping, initially led analysts to fear an increase in wholesale oil prices and subsequent impact on household energy costs.

Contrary to these concerns, oil prices have remained relatively stable, and European gas reserves have been higher than anticipated during a mild winter, with European gas prices returning to pre-Ukraine war levels since November.

Cornwall Insight anticipates that energy prices will continue to be comparatively low through 2024. They predict a further decline to £1,497 for a typical annual bill from July, followed by a slight increase to £1,541 starting in October.

This forecast is a welcome development for Britons who have been dealing with increased expenses across various sectors, from food to utilities, amidst persistently high inflation rates, with energy-driven EU inflation hitting lower-income households hardest across member states.

Energy bills saw a steep rise in 2021, which escalated further due to the Ukraine conflict in 2022, driving up wholesale gas prices. This surge prompted government intervention to subsidize bills, with the UK price cap estimated to cost around £89bn to the public purse, capping costs to a typical household at £2,500.

Cornwall Insight noted that the supply of liquified natural gas to Europe had not been as adversely affected by the Red Sea disruptions as initially feared. Moreover, the UK has been well-supplied with gas from the US, which has become a more significant supplier since the Ukraine war, even as US electricity prices have risen to multi-decade highs. Contributing factors also include lower gas prices in Asia, mild weather, and robust gas availability.

Craig Lowrey, a principal consultant at Cornwall Insight, remarked that concerns about Red Sea events driving up energy prices have not materialized, allowing households to expect a reduction in prices.

On Monday, the next-month wholesale gas price dropped by 4% to 65p a therm.

However, Lowrey cautioned that a complete return to pre-crisis energy bill levels remains unlikely due to ongoing market impacts from shifting away from Russian energy sources and persistent geopolitical tensions, as well as policy changes such as Britain’s Energy Security Bill shaping market reforms.

Richard Neudegg, director of regulation at Uswitch, welcomed the potential further reduction of the price cap in April. However, he pointed out that this offers little solace to households currently struggling with high winter energy costs during the winter. Neudegg urged Ofgem, the energy regulator, to prompt suppliers to reintroduce more competitive and affordable fixed-price deals.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News