Public power backers cry foul over utility effort

Carbon Price Support, the UK carbon tax on power, slashed coal generation, cut CO2 emissions, boosted gas and imports via interconnectors, and signaled effective electricity market decarbonization across Great Britain and the EU.

Key Points

A UK power-sector carbon tax that drove coal off the grid, cut emissions, and shifted generation toward gas and imports.

✅ Coal generation fell from 40% to 3% in six years

✅ Rate rose to £18/tCO2 in 2015, boosting the coal-to-gas switch

✅ Added ~£39 to 2018 bills; imports via interconnectors eased prices

A tax on carbon dioxide emissions in Great Britain, introduced in 2013, has led to the proportion of electricity generated from coal falling from 40% to 3% over six years, a trend mirrored by global coal decline in power generation, according to research led by UCL.

British electricity generated from coal fell from 13.1 TWh (terawatt hours) in 2013 to 0.97 TWh in September 2019, and was replaced by other less emission-heavy forms of generation such as gas, as producers move away from coal in many markets. The decline in coal generation accelerated substantially after the tax was increased in 2015.

In the report, 'The Value of International Electricity Trading', researchers from UCL and the University of Cambridge also showed that the tax—called Carbon Price Support—added on average £39 to British household electricity bills, within the broader context of UK net zero policies shaping the energy transition, collecting around £740m for the Treasury, in 2018.

Academics researched how the tax affected electricity flows to connected countries and interconnector (the large cables connecting the countries) revenue between 2015—when the tax was increased to £18 per tonne of carbon dioxide—and 2018. Following this increase, the share of coal-fired electricity generation fell from 28% in 2015 to 5% in 2018, reaching 3% by September 2019. Increased electricity imports from the continent, alongside the EU electricity demand outlook across member states, reduced the price impact in the UK, and meant that some of the cost was paid through a slight increase in continental electricity prices (mainly in France and the Netherlands).

Project lead Dr. Giorgio Castagneto Gissey (Bartlett Institute for Sustainable Resources, UCL) said: "Should EU countries also adopt a high carbon tax we would likely see huge carbon emission reductions throughout the Continent, as we've seen in Great Britain over the last few years."

Lead author, Professor David Newbery (University of Cambridge), said: "The Carbon Price Support provides a clear signal to our neighbours of its efficacy at reducing CO2 emissions."

The Carbon Price Support was introduced in England, Scotland and Wales at a rate of £4.94 per tonne of carbon dioxide-equivalent and is now capped at £18 until 2021.The tax is one part of the Total Carbon Price, which also includes the price of EU Emissions Trading System permits and reflects global CO2 emissions trends shaping policy design.

Report co-author Bowei Guo (University of Cambridge) said: "The Carbon Price Support has been instrumental in driving coal off the grid, but we show how it also creates distortions to cross-border trade, making a case for EU-wide adoption."

Professor Michael Grubb (Bartlett Institute for Sustainable Resources, UCL) said: "Great Britain's electricity transition is a monumental achievement of global interest, and has also demonstrated the power of an effective carbon price in lowering dependence on electricity generated from coal."

The overall report on electricity trading also covers the value of EU interconnectors to Great Britain, measures the efficiency of cross-border electricity trading and considers the value of post-Brexit decoupling from EU electricity markets, setting these findings against the global energy transition underway.

Published today, the report annex focusing on the Carbon Price Support was produced by UCL to focus on the impact of the tax on British energy bills, with comparisons to Canadian climate policy debates informing grid impacts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

BC Hydro 2021 Peak Load Records highlight record-breaking electricity demand, peak load spikes, heat dome impacts, extreme cold, and shifting work-from-home patterns managed by a flexible hydroelectric system and climate-driven load trends.

Key Points

Record-breaking electricity demand peaks from extreme heat and cold that reshaped daily load patterns across BC in 2021.

✅ Heat dome and deep freeze drove sustained peak electricity demand

✅ Peak load built gradually, reflecting work-from-home behavior

✅ Flexible hydroelectric system adapts quickly to demand spikes

From June’s heat dome to December’s extreme cold, 2021 was a record-setting year, according to BC Hydro, and similar spikes were noted as Calgary's electricity use surged in frigid weather.

On Friday, the energy company released a new report on electricity demand, and how extreme temperatures over extended periods of time, along with growing scrutiny of crypto mining electricity use, led to record peak loads.

“We use peak loads to describe the electricity demand in the province during the highest load hour of each day,” Kyle Donaldson, BC Hydro spokesperson, said in a media release.

“With the heat dome in the summer and the sustained cold temperatures in December, we saw more record-breaking hours on more days last year than any other single year.”

According to BC Hydro, during summer, the Crown corporation recorded 19 of its top 25 all-time summer daily peak records — including breaking its all-time summer peak hourly demand record.

In December, which saw extremely cold temperatures and heavy snowfall, BC Hydro said its system experienced the highest and longest sustained load levels ever, as it activated its winter payment plan to assist customers.

Overall, BC Hydro says it has experienced 11 of its top 25 all-time daily peak records this winter, adding that Dec. 27 broke its all-time high peak hourly demand record.

“BC Hydro’s hydroelectric system is directly impacted by variations in weather, including drought conditions that require adaptation, and in 2021 more electricity demand records were broken than any other year prior, largely because of the back-to-back extreme temperatures lasting for days and weeks on end,” reads the report.

The energy company expects this trend to continue, noting that it has broken the peak record five times in the past five years, and other jurisdictions such as Quebec consumption record have also shattered consumption records.

It also noted that peak demand patterns have also changed since the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, with trends seen during Earth Hour usage offering context.

“When the previous peak hourly load record was broken in January 2020, load displayed sharper increases and decreases throughout the day, suggesting more typical weather and behaviour,” said the report.

“In contrast, the 2021 peak load built up more gradually throughout the day, suggesting more British Columbians were likely working from home, or home for the holidays – waking up later and home earlier in the evening – as well as colder weather than average.”

BC Hydro also said “current climate models suggest a warming trend continuing in years to come which could increase demand year-round,” but noted that its flexible hydroelectric system can meet changes in demand quickly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Alberta Clean Electricity Regulations face federal mandates and provincial autonomy, balancing greenhouse gas cuts, net-zero 2050 goals, and renewable energy adoption across wind, solar, and hydro, while protecting jobs and economic stability in energy communities.

Key Points

Rules to cut power emissions, boost renewables, and align Alberta with federal net-zero goals under federal mandates.

✅ Phases out coal and curbs greenhouse gas emissions

✅ Expands wind, solar, and hydro to diversify the grid

✅ Balances provincial autonomy with national climate targets

In a recent development, Alberta finds itself at a crossroads between provincial autonomy and federal mandates concerning federal clean electricity regulations that shape long-term planning. The province, known for its significant oil and gas industry, faces increasing pressure to align its energy policies with federal climate goals set by Ottawa.

The federal government, under the leadership of Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, has proposed regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning towards a cleaner energy future that prioritizes clean grids and batteries across provinces. These regulations are part of Canada's broader commitment to combat climate change and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Federal Perspective

From Ottawa's standpoint, stringent regulations on Alberta's electricity sector are necessary to meet national climate targets. This includes measures to phase out coal-fired power plants and increase reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. Minister Guilbeault emphasizes the importance of these regulations in mitigating Canada's carbon footprint and fostering sustainable development.

Alberta's Response

In contrast, Alberta has historically championed provincial autonomy in energy policy, leveraging its vast fossil fuel resources to drive economic growth. The province remains cautious about federal interventions that could potentially disrupt its energy sector, a cornerstone of its economy, especially amid changes to how electricity is produced and paid for now under discussion.

Premier Jason Kenney has expressed concerns over federal overreach, and his influence over electricity policy has shaped proposals in the legislature. He emphasizes the province's efforts in adopting cleaner technologies while balancing economic stability and environmental sustainability.

The Balancing Act

The challenge lies in finding a middle ground between federal imperatives and provincial priorities, as interprovincial disputes like B.C.'s export-restriction challenge complicate coordination. Alberta acknowledges the need to diversify its energy portfolio and reduce emissions but insists on preserving its jurisdiction over energy policy. The province has already made strides in renewable energy development, including investing in wind and solar projects alongside traditional energy sources.

Economic Implications

For Alberta, the transition to cleaner electricity carries significant economic implications as the electricity market heads for a reshuffle in the coming years. It entails navigating the complexities of energy transition, ensuring job retention, and fostering innovation in sustainable technologies. Critics argue that abrupt federal regulations could exacerbate economic hardships, particularly in communities reliant on the fossil fuel industry.

Moving Forward

As discussions continue between Alberta and Ottawa, finding common ground, including consideration of recent market change proposals from the province, remains essential. Collaborative efforts are necessary to develop tailored solutions that accommodate both environmental responsibilities and economic realities. This includes exploring incentives for renewable energy investment, supporting energy sector workers in transitioning to new industries, and leveraging Alberta's expertise in energy innovation.

Conclusion

Alberta's journey towards clean electricity regulation exemplifies the delicate balance between regional autonomy and federal oversight in Canada's complex federal system. While tensions persist between provincial and federal priorities, both levels of government share a common commitment to addressing climate change and advancing sustainable energy solutions.

The outcome of these negotiations will not only shape Alberta's energy landscape but also influence Canada's overall progress towards a greener future. Finding equitable solutions that respect provincial autonomy while achieving national environmental goals remains paramount in navigating this evolving policy landscape.

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

Nelson DC Fast-Charging EV Station delivers 50-kilowatt DCFC service at the community complex, expanding EV infrastructure in British Columbia with FortisBC, faster than Level 2 chargers, supporting clean transportation, range confidence, and highway corridor travel.

Key Points

A 50 kW public DC fast charger in Nelson, BC, run by FortisBC, providing rapid EV charging at the community complex.

✅ 50 kW DCFC cuts charge time to about 30 minutes

✅ $9 per half hour session; convenient downtown location

✅ Funded by NRCan, BC government, and FortisBC

FortisBC and the City of Nelson celebrated the opening of Nelson's first publicly available direct current fast-charging (DCFC) electric vehicle (EV) station on Friday.

"Adopting EV's is one of many ways for individuals to reduce carbon emissions," said Mayor John Dooley, City of Nelson. "We hope that the added convenience of this fast-charging station helps grow EV adoption among our community, and we appreciate the support from FortisBC, the province and the federal government."

The new station, located at the Nelson and District Community Complex, provides a convenient and faster charge option right in the heart of the commercial district and makes Nelson more accessible for both local and out-of-town EV drivers. The 50-kilowatt station is expected to bring a compact EV from zero to 80 per cent charged in about a half an hour, as compared to the four Level-2 charging stations located in downtown Nelson that require from three to four hours. The cost for a half hour charge at the new DC fast-charging station is $9 per half hour.

This fast-charging station was made possible through a partnership between FortisBC, the City of Nelson, Nelson Hydro, the Province of British Columbia and Natural Resources Canada. As part of the partnership, the City of Nelson is providing the location and FortisBC will own and manage the station.

This is the latest of 12 fast-charging stations FortisBC has built over the last year with support from municipalities and all levels of government, and adds to the five FortisBC-owned Kootenay stations that were opened as part of the accelerate Kootenays initiative in 2018.

All 12 stations were 50 per cent funded by Natural Resources Canada, 25 per cent by BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the remaining 25 per cent by FortisBC. The funding is provided by Natural Resources Canada's Electric Vehicle and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Deployment Initiative, which aims to establish a coast-to-coast network of fast-chargers along the national highway system, natural gas refueling stations along key freight corridors and hydrogen refueling stations in major metropolitan areas. It is part of the Government of Canada's more than $180-billion Investing in Canada infrastructure plan. The Government of British Columbia is also contributing $300,000 towards the fast-chargers through its Clean Energy Vehicle Public Fast Charging Program.

This station brings the total DCFC chargers FortisBC owns and operates to 17 stations across 14 communities in the southern interior. FortisBC continues to look for opportunities to expand this network as part of its 30BY30 goal of reducing emissions from its customers by 30 per cent by 2030. For more information about the FortisBC electric vehicle fast-charging network, visit: fortisbc.com/electricvehicle.

"Electric vehicles play a key role in building a cleaner future. We are pleased to work with partners like FortisBC and the City of Nelson to give Canadians greener options to drive where they need to go, " said The Honourable Seamus O'Regan, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources.

"Nelson's first public fast-charging EV station increases EV infrastructure in the city, making it easier than ever to make the switch to cleaner transportation. Along with a range of rebates and financial incentives available to EV drivers, it is now more convenient and affordable to go electric and this station is a welcome addition to our EV charging infrastructure," said Michelle Mungall, BC's Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness, and MLA for Nelson Creston.

"Building the necessary DC fast-charging infrastructure, such as the Lillooet fast-charging site in British Columbia, close to highways and local amenities where drivers need them most is a critical step in growing electric vehicle adoption. Collaborations like this are proving to be an effective way to achieve this, and I'd like to thank all the program partners for their commitment in opening this important station, " said Mark Warren, Director of Business Innovation, FortisBC.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

FortisAlberta COVID-19 response delivers safe electricity distribution across Alberta, with remote monitoring, 24/7 support, outage alerts, dispersed crews, and business continuity measures to sustain essential services for customers and communities.

Key Points

Plan ensuring reliable electricity in Alberta through 24/7 support, remote monitoring, outage alerts, and dispersed crews.

✅ 24/7 customer support via 310-WIRE and mobile app

✅ Remote monitoring and rapid outage restoration

✅ Dispersed crews in 50 communities for faster response

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve in Alberta (and around the world), FortisAlberta is taking the necessary actions and precautions informed by utility disaster planning to protect the health and well-being of its employees and to provide electricity service to its customers. FortisAlberta serves more than half a million customers with the electricity they depend on to take care of their families and community members throughout our province.

"We recognize these are challenging times as while most Albertans are asked to stay home others continue to work in the community to provide essential services, including utility workers in Ontario demonstrating support efforts. As your electricity distribution provider, please be assured you can count on us to do what we do best – provide our customers with safe and reliable electricity service wherever and whenever they need it," says Michael Mosher, FortisAlberta President and CEO.

FortisAlberta is proud to be a part of the communities it serves and commits to keeping the lights on for its customers. The company is providing a full range of services for its customers and has instilled best practices within critical parts of its business. The company's control centre continues to remotely monitor, control, and restore, where possible, the delivery of power across the entire province, including during events such as an Alberta grid alert that stress the system. Early in March, FortisAlberta implemented its business continuity plan and the company remains fully accessible to customers 24/7 by phone at 310-WIRE (9473) or through its mobile app where customers can report outages online or view details of an outage. Customers can also sign up for outage alerts to their mobile phone and/or email address to let them know if an outage does occur.

FortisAlberta's power line employees are geographically dispersed across 50 different communities so they can quickly address any issues that may arise. The company has implemented work from home measures and isolation best practices, and is planning for potential on-site lockdowns where necessary to ensure no disruption to customers.

FortisAlberta will continue to remain in close communication with its stakeholders to provide updates to customers and with industry associations to share guidance specific to the electricity sector, including insights on the evolving U.S. grid response to COVID-19 from peer utilities. FortisAlberta will also continue to invest in and empower its communities by contributing to organizations that offer programs and services aligned with the greatest needs in the communities it serves.

With the Alberta Government's recent announcement to provide relief to eligible Albertans by deferring electricity and gas charges for up to 90 days, similar to some B.C. relief measures being implemented, FortisAlberta is committed to working with stakeholders and retail partners to ensure this option is available to customers quickly and efficiently, and to learn from initiatives like the Hydro One relief fund that support customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News