Indonesia Open to Idea of Selling Electricity to Singapore

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

TTC Battery-Electric Buses lead Toronto transit toward zero-emission mobility, improving air quality and climate goals with sustainable operations, advanced charging infrastructure, lower maintenance, energy efficiency, and reliable public transportation across the Toronto Transit Commission network.

Key Points

TTC battery-electric buses are zero-emission vehicles improving quality, lowering costs, and providing efficient service.

✅ Zero tailpipe emissions improve urban air quality

✅ Lower maintenance and energy costs increase savings

✅ Charging infrastructure enables reliable operations

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has embarked on an exciting new chapter in its commitment to sustainability with the introduction of battery-electric buses to its fleet. This strategic move not only highlights the TTC's dedication to reducing its environmental impact but also positions Toronto as a leader in the evolution of public transportation. As cities worldwide strive for greener solutions, the TTC’s initiative stands as a significant milestone toward a more sustainable urban future.

Embracing Green Technology

The decision to integrate battery-electric buses into Toronto's transit system aligns with a growing trend among urban centers to adopt cleaner, more efficient technologies, including Metro Vancouver electric buses now in service. With climate change posing urgent challenges, transit authorities are rethinking their operations to foster cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The TTC’s new fleet of battery-electric buses represents a proactive approach to addressing these concerns, aiming to create a cleaner, healthier environment for all Torontonians.

Battery-electric buses operate without producing tailpipe emissions, and deployments like Edmonton's first electric bus illustrate this shift, offering a stark contrast to traditional diesel-powered vehicles. This transition is crucial for improving air quality in urban areas, where transportation is a leading source of air pollution. By choosing electric options, the TTC not only enhances the city’s air quality but also contributes to the global effort to combat climate change.

Economic and Operational Advantages

Beyond environmental benefits, battery-electric buses present significant economic advantages. Although the initial investment for electric buses may be higher than that for conventional diesel buses, and broader adoption challenges persist, the long-term savings are substantial. Electric buses have lower operating costs due to reduced fuel expenses and less frequent maintenance requirements. The electric propulsion system generally involves fewer moving parts than traditional engines, resulting in lower overall maintenance costs and improved service reliability.

Moreover, the increased efficiency of electric buses translates into reduced energy consumption. Electric buses convert a larger proportion of energy from the grid into motion, minimizing waste and optimizing operational effectiveness. This not only benefits the TTC financially but also enhances the overall experience for riders by providing a more reliable and punctual service.

Infrastructure Development

To support the introduction of battery-electric buses, the TTC is also investing in necessary infrastructure upgrades, including the installation of charging stations throughout the city. These charging facilities are essential for ensuring that the electric fleet can operate smoothly and efficiently. By strategically placing charging stations at transit hubs and along bus routes, the TTC aims to create a seamless transition for both operators and riders.

This infrastructure development is critical not just for the operational capacity of the electric buses but also for fostering public confidence in this new technology, and consistent safety measures such as the TTC's winter safety policy on lithium-ion devices reinforce that trust. As the TTC rolls out these vehicles, clear communication regarding their operational logistics, including charging times and routes, will be essential to inform and engage the community.

Engaging the Community

The TTC is committed to engaging with Toronto’s diverse communities throughout the rollout of its battery-electric bus program. Community outreach initiatives will help educate residents about the benefits of electric transit, addressing any concerns and building public support, and will also discuss emerging alternatives like Mississauga fuel cell buses in the region. Informational campaigns, workshops, and public forums will provide opportunities for dialogue, allowing residents to voice their opinions and learn more about the technology.

This engagement is vital for ensuring that the transition is not just a top-down initiative but a collaborative effort that reflects the needs and interests of the community. By fostering a sense of ownership among residents, the TTC can cultivate support for its sustainable transit goals.

A Vision for the Future

The TTC’s introduction of battery-electric buses marks a transformative moment in Toronto’s public transit landscape. This initiative exemplifies the commission's broader vision of creating a more sustainable, efficient, and user-friendly transportation network. As the city continues to grow, the need for innovative solutions to urban mobility challenges becomes increasingly critical.

By embracing electric technology, the TTC is setting an example for other transit agencies across Canada and beyond, and piloting driverless EV shuttles locally underscores that leadership. This initiative is not just about introducing new vehicles; it is about reimagining public transportation in a way that prioritizes environmental responsibility and community engagement. As Toronto moves forward, the integration of battery-electric buses will play a crucial role in shaping a cleaner, greener future for urban transit, ultimately benefitting residents and the planet alike.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

Electricity Grid Flow Prediction leverages big data, machine learning, and weather analytics to forecast power flows across smart grids, enhancing reliability, reducing blackouts and curtailment, and optimizing renewable integration under EU Horizon 2020 innovation.

Key Points

Short-term forecasting of power flows using big data, weather inputs, and machine learning to stabilize smart grids.

✅ Uses big data, weather, and ML for 6-hour forecasts

✅ Improves reliability, cuts blackouts and energy waste

✅ Supports smart grids, renewables, and grid balancing

Three European prediction specialists have won prizes worth €2 million for developing the most accurate predictions of electricity flow through a grid

The three winners of the Big Data Technologies Horizon Prize received their awards at a ceremony on 12th November in Austria.

The first prize of €1.2 million went to Professor José Vilar from Spain, while Belgians Sofie Verrewaere and Yann-Aël Le Borgne came in joint second place and won €400,000 each.

The challenge was open to individuals groups and organisations from countries taking part in the EU’s research and innovation programme, Horizon 2020.

Carlos Moedas, Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, said: “Energy is one of the crucial sectors that are being transformed by the digital grid worldwide.

“This Prize is a good example of how we support a positive transformation through the EU’s research and innovation programme, Horizon 2020.

“For the future, we have designed our next programme, Horizon Europe, to put even more emphasis on the merger of the physical and digital worlds across sectors such as energy, transport and health.”

The challenge for the applicants was to create AI-driven software that could predict the likely flow of electricity through a grid taking into account a number of factors including the weather and the generation source (i.e. wind turbines, solar cells, etc).

Using a large quantity of data from electricity grids, EU smart meters, combined with additional data such as weather conditions, applicants had to develop software that could predict the flow of energy through the grid over a six-hour period.

Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society Mariya Gabriel said: “The wide range of possible applications of these winning submissions could bring tangible benefits to all European citizens, including efforts to tackle climate change with machine learning across sectors.”

The decision to focus on energy grids for this particular prize was driven by a clear market need, including expanding HVDC technology capabilities.

Today’s energy is produced at millions of interconnected and dispersed unpredictable sites such as wind turbines, solar cells, etc., so it is harder to ensure that electricity supply matches the demand at all times.

This complexity means that huge amounts of data are produced at the energy generation sites, in the grid and at the place where the energy is consumed.

Being able to make accurate, short-term predictions about power grid traffic is therefore vital to reduce the risks of blackouts or, by enabling utilities to use AI for energy savings, limit waste of energy.

Reliable predictions can also be used in fields such as biology and healthcare. The predictions can help to diagnose and cure diseases as well as to allocate resources where they are most needed.

Ultimately, the winning ideas are set to be picked up by the energy sector in the hopes of creating smarter electricity infrastructure, more economic and more reliable power grids.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Expanded Hoa Binh Hydropower Plant increases EVN capacity with 480MW turbines, commercial loan financing, grid stability, flood control, and Da River reliability, supported by PECC1 feasibility work and CMSC collaboration on site clearance.

Key Points

A 480MW EVN expansion on the Da River to enhance grid stability, flood control, and seasonal water supply in Vietnam.

✅ 480MW, two turbines, EVN-led financing without guarantees

✅ Improves frequency modulation and national grid stability

✅ Supports flood control and dry-season water supply

The extended Hoa Binh Hydropower Plant, which is expected to break ground in October 2020, is considered the largest power project to be constructed this year, even as Vietnam advances a mega wind project planned for 2025.

Covering an area of 99.2 hectares, the project is invested by Electricity of Vietnam (EVN). Besides, Vietnam Electricity Power Projects Management Board No.1 (EVNPMB1) is the representative of the investor and Power Engineering Consulting JSC 1 (EVNPECC1) is in charge of building the feasibility report for the project. The expanded Hoa Binh Hydro Power Plant has a total investment of VND9.22 trillion ($400.87 million), 30 per cent of which is EVN’s equity and the remaining 70 per cent comes from commercial loans without a government guarantee.

According to the initial plan, EVN will begin the construction of the project in the second quarter of this year and is expected to take the first unit into operation in the third quarter of 2023, a timeline reminiscent of Barakah Unit 1 reaching full power, and the second one in the fourth quarter of the same year.

Chairman of the Committee for Management of State Capital at Enterprises (CMSC) Nguyen Hoang Anh said that in order to start the construction in time, CMSC will co-operate with EVN to work with partners as well as local and foreign banks to mobilise capital, reflecting broader nuclear project milestones across the energy sector.

In addition, EVN will co-operate with Hoa Binh People’s Committee to implement site clearance, remove Ba Cap port and select contractors.

Once completed, the project will contribute to preventing floods in the rainy season and supply water in the dry season. The plant expansion will include two turbines with the total capacity of 480MW, similar in scale to the 525-MW hydropower station China is building on a Yangtze tributary, and electricity output of about 488.3 million kWh per year.

In addition, it will help improve frequency modulation capability and stabilise the frequency of the national electricity system through approaches like pumped storage capacity, and reduce the working intensity of available turbines of the plant, thus prolonging the life of the equipment and saving maintenance and repair costs.

Built in the Da River basin in the northern mountainous province of Hoa Binh, at the time of its conception in 1979, Hoa Binh was the largest hydropower plant in Southeast Asia, while projects such as China’s Lawa hydropower station now dwarf earlier benchmarks.

The construction was supported by the Soviet Union all the way through, designing, supplying equipment, supervising, and helping it go on stream. Construction began in November 1979 and was completed 15 years later in December 1994, when it was officially commissioned, similar to two new BC generating stations recently brought online.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro electricity demand decline reflects COVID-19 impacts across British Columbia, with reduced industrial load, full reservoirs, strategic spilling, and potential rate increases, as hydropower plants adjust operations at Seven Mile, Revelstoke, and Site C.

Key Points

A 10% COVID-19-driven drop in BC power use, prompting reservoir spilling, plant curtailment, and potential rate hikes.

✅ 10% load drop; industrial demand down 7% since mid-March

✅ Reservoirs near capacity; controlled spilling to mitigate risk

✅ Possible rate hikes; Site C construction continues

Elecricity demand is down 10 per cent across British Columbia, an unprecedented decline in commercial electricity consumption sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a BC Hydro report.

Power demand across hotels, offices, recreational facilities and restaurants have dwindled as British Columbians self isolate, and bill relief for residents and businesses was introduced during this period.

The shortfall means there's a surplus of water in reservoirs across the province.

"This drop in load in addition to the spring snow melt is causing our reservoirs to reach near capacity, which could lead to environmental concerns, as well as public safety risks if we don't address the challenges now," said spokesperson Tanya Fish.

Crews will have to strategically spill reservoirs to keep them from overflowing, a process that can have negative impacts on downstream ecosystems. Excessive spilling can increase fish mortality rates.

Spilling is currently underway at the Seven Mile and Revelstoke reservoirs. In addition, several small plants have been shut down.

Site C and hydro rates
According to the report, titled Demand Dilemma, the decline could continue into April 2021 and drop by another two per cent, even as a regulator report alleged BC Hydro misled oversight bodies.

Major industry — forestry, mining and oil and gas — accounts for about 30 per cent of BC Hydro's overall electricity load. Energy demand from these customers has dropped by seven per cent since mid-March, while in Manitoba a Consumers Coalition has urged rejection of proposed rate increases.

BC Hydro says a prolonged drop in demand could have an impact on future rates, which could potentially go up as the power provider looks to recoup deferred operating costs and financial losses.

In Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro's debt has grown significantly, underscoring the financial risks utilities face during demand shocks.

Fish said the crown corporation still expects there to be increased demand in the long-term. She said construction of the Site C Dam is continuing as planned to support clean-energy generation in the province. There are currently nearly 1,000 workers on-site.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News