Russia completes Iran nuclear plant's cooling system

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia, led by Southern Nuclear, Georgia Power, and Bechtel, adding 2,234 MWe of carbon-free baseload power with DOE loan guarantees.

Key Points

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are AP1000 reactors in Georgia delivering 2,234 MWe of low-carbon baseload electricity.

✅ Each unit: Westinghouse AP1000, 1,117 MWe capacity.

✅ Managed by Southern Nuclear, built by Bechtel.

✅ DOE loan guarantees support financing and risk.

Construction is ongoing for two new nuclear reactors, Units 3 and 4, at Georgia Power's Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro, Ga. the first new nuclear reactors to be constructed in the United Stated in 30 years, mirroring a new U.S. reactor startup that will provide electricity to more than 500,000 homes and businesses once operational.

Construction on Unit 3 started in March 2013 with an expected completion date of November 2021. For Unit 4, work began in November 2013 with a targeted delivery date of November 2022. Each unit houses a Westinghouse AP1000 (Advanced Passive) nuclear reactor that can generate about 1,117 megawatts (MWe). The reactor pressure vessels and steam generators are from Doosan, a South Korean firm.

The pouring of concrete was delayed to 2013 due to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuing a license amendment which permitted the use of higher-strength concrete for the foundations of the reactors, eliminating the need to make additional modifications to reinforcing steel bar.

The work is occurring in the middle of an operational nuclear facility, and the construction area contains many cranes and storage areas for the prefabricated parts being installed. Space also is needed for various trucks making deliveries, especially concrete.

The reactor buildings, circular in shape, are several hundred feet apart from one another and each one has an annex building and a turbine island structure. The estimated total price for the project is expected in the $18.7 billion range. Bechtel Corporation, which built Units 1 and 2, was brought in January 2017 to take over the construction that is being overseen by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNOC), which operates the plant.

The project will require the equivalent of 3,375 miles of sidewalk; the towers for Units 3 and 4 are 60 stories high and have two million pound CA modules; the office space for both units is 300,000 sq. ft.; and there are more than 8,000 construction workers over 30 percent being military veterans. The new reactors will create 800 permanent jobs.

Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power took over management of the construction project in 2017 after Westinghouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The plant, built in the late 1980s with Unit 1 becoming operational in 1987 and Unit 2 in 1989, is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7 percent), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30 percent), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent) and Dalton Utilities (1.6 percent).

"Significant progress has been made on the construction of Vogtle 3 and 4 since the transition to Southern Nuclear following the Westinghouse bankruptcy," said Paul Bowers, Chairman, President and CEO of Georgia Power. "While there will always be challenges in building the first new nuclear units in this country in more than 30 years, we remain focused on reducing project risk and maintaining the current project momentum in order to provide our customers with a new carbon-free energy source that will put downward pressure on rates for 60 to 80 years."

The Vogtle and Hatch nuclear plants currently provide more than 20 percent of Georgia's annual electricity needs. Vogtle will be the only four-unit nuclear facility in the country. The energy is needed to meet the rising demand for electricity as the state expects to have more than four million new residents by 2030.

The plant's expansion is the largest ongoing construction project in Georgia and one of the largest in the state's history, while comparable refurbishments such as the Bruce reactor overhaul progress in Canada. Last March an agreement was signed to secure approximately $1.67 billion in additional Department of Energy loan guarantees. Georgia Power previously secured loan guarantees of $3.46 billion.

The signing highlighted the placement of the top of the containment vessel for Unit 3, echoing the Hinkley Point C roof lift seen in the U.K., which signified that all modules and large components had been placed inside it. The containment vessel is a high-integrity steel structure that houses critical plant components. The top head is 130 ft. in diameter, 37 ft. tall, and weighs nearly 1.5 million lbs. It is comprised of 58 large plates, welded together with each more than 1.5 in. thick.

"From the very beginning, public and private partners have stood with us," said Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Tom Fanning. "Everyone involved in the project remains focused on sustaining our momentum."

Bechtel has completed more than 80 percent of the project, and the major milestones for 2019 have been met, aligning with global nuclear milestones reported across the industry, including setting the Unit 4 pressurizer inside the containment vessel last February, which will provide pressure control inside the reactor coolant system. More specialized construction workers, including craft labor, have been hired via the addition of approximately 300 pipefitters and 350 electricians since November 2018. Another 500 to 1,000 craft workers have been more recently brought in.

A key accomplishment occurred last December when 1,300 cu. yds. of concrete were poured inside the Unit 4 containment vessel during a 21-hour operation that involved more than 100 workers and more than 120 truckloads of concrete. In 2018 alone, more than 23,000 cu. yds. of concrete were poured part of the nearly 600,000 cu. yds. placed since construction started, and the installation of more than 16,200 yds. of piping.

Progress also has been solid for Unit 3. Last January the integrated head package (IHP) was set inside the containment vessel. The IHP, weighing 475,000 lbs. and standing 48 ft. tall, combines several separate components in one assembly and allows the rapid removal of the reactor vessel head during a refueling outage. One month earlier, the placement of the third and final ring for containment vessel, and the placement of the fourth and final reactor coolant pump (RCP, 375,000 lbs.), were executed.

"Weighing just under 2 million pounds, approximately 38 feet high and with a diameter of 130 feet, the ring is the fourth of five sections that make up the containment vessel," stated a Georgia Power press release. "The RCPs are mounted to the steam generator and serve a critical part of the reactor coolant system, circulating water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel, allowing sufficient heat transfer for safe plant operation. In the same month, the Unit 3 shield building with additional double-decker panels, was placed.

According to a construction update from Georgia Power, a total of eight six-panel sections have been placed, with each one measuring 20 ft. tall and 114 ft. wide, weighing up to 300,000 lbs. To date, more than half of the shield building panels have been placed for Unit 3. The shield building panels, fabricated in Newport News, Va., provide structural support to the containment cooling water supply and protect the containment vessel, which houses the reactor vessel.

Building the reactors is challenging due to the design, reflecting lessons from advanced reactors now being deployed. Unit 3 will have 157 fuel assemblies, with each being a little over 14 ft. long. They are crucial to fuelling the reactor, and once the initial fueling is completed, nearly one-third of the fuel assemblies will be replaced for each re-fuelling operation. In addition to the Unit 3 containment top, placement crews installed three low-pressure turbine rotors and the generator rotor inside the unit's turbine building.

Last November, major systems testing got underway at Unit 3 as the site continues to transition from construction toward system operations. The Open Vessel Testing will demonstrate how water flows from the key safety systems into the reactor vessel ensuring the paths are not blocked or constricted.

"This is a significant step on our path towards operations," said Glen Chick, Vogtle 3 & 4 construction executive vice president. "[This] will prepare the unit for cold hydro testing and hot functional testing next year both critical tests required ahead of initial fuel load."

It also confirms that the pumps, motors, valves, pipes and other components function as designed, a reminder of how issues like the South Carolina plant leak can disrupt operations when systems falter.

"It follows the Integrated Flush process, which began in August, to push water through system piping and mechanical components that feed into the Unit 3 reactor vessel and reactor coolant loops for the first time," stated a press release. "Significant progress continues ... including the placement of the final reinforced concrete portion of the Unit 4 shield building. The 148-cubic yard placement took eight hours to complete and, once cured, allows for the placement of the first course of double-decker panels. Also, the upper inner casing for the Unit 3 high-pressure turbine has been placed, signifying the completion of the centerline alignment, which will mean minimal vibration and less stress on the rotors during operations, resulting in more efficient power generation."

The turbine rotors, each weighing approximately 200 tons and rotating at 1,800 revolutions per-minute, pass steam through the turbine blades to power the generator.

The placement of the middle containment vessel ring for Unit 4 was completed in early July. This required several cranes to work in tandem as the 51-ft. tall ring weighed 2.4 million lbs. and had dozens of individual steel plates that were fabricated on site.

A key part of the construction progress was made in late July with the order of the first nuclear fuel load for Unit 3, which consists of 157 fuel assemblies with each measuring 14 ft. tall.

On May 7, Unit 3 was energized (permanently powered), which was essential to perform the testing for the unit. Prior to this, the plant equipment had been running on temporary construction power.

"[This] is a major first step in transitioning the project from construction toward system operations," Chick said.

Construction of the north side of the Unit 3 Auxiliary Building (AB) has progressed with both the floor and roof modules being set. Substantial work also occurred on the steel and concrete that forms the remaining walls and the north AB roof at elevation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ERCOT Winter Capacity RFP seeks up to 3,000 MW through generation and demand response to bolster Texas grid reliability during peak load, leveraging Reliability Must-Run, incentive factors, and EEA risk mitigation for the 2023-24 season.

Key Points

An ERCOT initiative to procure 3,000 MW of generation and demand response to reduce EEA risk and improve reliability.

✅ Targets 3,000 MW from generation and demand response

✅ Uses RMR-style contracts with flexible incentive factors

✅ Aims to lower EEA probability below 10% this winter

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) issued a request for proposals to stakeholders to procure up to 3,000 MW of generation or demand response capacity to meet load and reserve requirements during the winter 2023-24 peak load season (Dec. 1, 2023, through Feb. 29, 2024), amid ongoing Texas power grid challenges across the region.

ERCOT cited “several factors, including significant peak load growth since last winter, recent and proposed retirements of dispatchable Generation Resources, and recent extreme winter weather events, including Winter Storm Elliott in December 2022, Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, and the 2018 and 2011 winter storms, each of which resulted in abnormally high demand during winter weather.” It now seeks additional capacity under its “authority to prevent an anticipated Emergency Condition,” reflecting nationwide blackout risks identified by grid experts.

In its notice regarding the RFP, ERCOT identified a number of mothballed and recently decommissioned generation resources that may be eligible to offer capacity under the RFP. It further stated that offers must comport with the format of its “Reliability Must-Run” agreement but could include a proposed “Incentive Factor” that reflects the revenues the unit owners determine would be necessary to bring the unit back to operation. It added that the Incentive Factor is not necessarily limited to 10%. Providers of eligible demand response can submit offers based on similar principles that are not necessarily constrained by cost. The notice identifies potential acceptable sources of demand response, describes certain parameters for the kinds of demand response that are permitted to respond to the RFP, and outlines the time periods during which ERCOT must be able to deploy the demand response resources to improve electricity reliability across the system.

To meet the Dec. 1, 2023, service start date, ERCOT developed an aggressive timeline to solicit and evaluate proposals through the RFP. Responses to the RFP are due Nov. 6, 2023. ERCOT’s schedule provides that it will notify market participants that obtain awards on Nov. 23, 2023. Expect contracts to be executed by Nov. 30, 2023.

Unlike Regional Transmission Organizations in the Northeastern United States, ERCOT does not have a capacity market. Instead, ERCOT relies on a high price cap of $5,000 per MWh for its energy market (decreased from the $9,000 per MWh cap in effect during Winter Storm Uri) and an Operating Reserve Demand Curve adder that pays additional funds to generators supplying power and ancillary services, an area recently scrutinized for improper payments when supply conditions are tight. In the wake of Winter Storm Uri, some calls were made to have ERCOT adopt a capacity market for reliability reasons, and a number of legal battles continue to play out in the wake of Winter Storm Uri. (See recent McGuireWoods legal alert “Winter Storm Uri Power Dispute Reaches the Supreme Court of Texas.”) Though a capacity market was not adopted, the Texas Legislature approved a $7.2 billion loan program, widely described as an electricity market bailout for generators, to build up to 10,000 MW of dispatchable generation. The legislature also approved a version of the Public Utility Commission of Texas’ proposal to establish a “Performance Credit Mechanism,” but with a cost cap of $1 billion.

The loss of life and economic impacts of Winter Storm Uri in 2021, along with the energy crunches and calls for conservation this past summer, are driving changes to ERCOT’s “energy-only” market, including electricity market reforms under consideration. Texas policymakers are providing multiple financial incentives to promote investment in dispatchable on-demand generation, and voters will consider funding to modernize generation measures this year to make the Texas grid more reliable and able to deal with power demand from a growing economy and increased demand for electricity driven by weather. In the meantime, ERCOT’s plan to procure 3,000 MW through this RFP process is a stopgap measure intended to bolster reliability for the upcoming winter season and lower the probability of load shed in the event of severe winter weather.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Rate Freeze Rejection details the BCUC decision enabling a 3% rate increase, citing revenue requirements, debt, and capital costs, affecting electricity bills, with NDP government proposing lifeline rates and low-income relief.

Key Points

It is the BCUC ruling allowing a 3% BC Hydro rate hike, citing cost recovery, debt, and capital needs.

✅ BCUC rejects freeze; 3% increase proceeds April 1, 2018

✅ Rationale: cost recovery, debt, capital expenditures

✅ Relief: lifeline rate, $600 grants, winter payment plan

The B.C. Utilities Commission has rejected a request by the provincial government to freeze rates at BC Hydro for the coming year, meaning a pending rate increase of three percent will come into effect as higher BC Hydro rates on April 1, 2018.

BC Hydro had asked for the three per cent increase, aligning with a rate increase proposal that would add about $2 a month, but, last year, Energy Minister Michelle Mungall directed the Crown corporation to resubmit its request in order to meet an NDP election promise.

"After years of escalating electricity costs, British Columbians deserve a break on their bills," she said at the time.

However, the utilities commission found there was "insufficient regulatory justification to approve the zero per cent rate increase."

"Even these increases do not fully recover B.C. Hydro's forecast revenue requirement, which includes items such as operating costs, new capital expenditures and carrying costs on capital expenditures," the commission wrote in a news release.

Mungall said she was disappointed by the decision.

"We were always clear we were going to the BCUC. We need to respect the role the BCUC has here for the ratepayers and for the public. I'm very disappointed obviously with their decision."

Mungall blamed the previous government for leaving BC Hydro in a financial state where a rate freeze was ultimately not possible.

Last month, Moody's Investors Service calculated BC Hydro's total debt at $22 billion and said it was one of the province's two credit challenges going forward.

"There's quite a financial mess that is a B.C. Liberal legacy after 16 years of government. We have the responsibility as a new government to clean that up."

B.C. Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson said it was an example of the new government not living up to its campaign promises.

"British Columbians, particularly those on fixed incomes, believed the B.C. NDP when they promised a freeze on hydro bills. They planned accordingly and are now left in the lurch and face higher expenses. This is a government that stumbles into messes that cost all of us because they put rhetoric ahead of planning," he said.

Help on the way?

With the freeze being rejected, Mungall said the government would be going forward on other initiatives to help low-income ratepayers, as advocates' call for change after a fund surplus, including:

Legislating a "lifeline rate" program, allowing people with "demonstrated need" to apply for a lower rate for electricity.

Starting in May, providing an emergency grant of $600 for customers who have an outstanding BC Hydro bill.

Hydro's annual winter payment plan also allows people the chance to spread the payment of bills from December to February out over six months, and, with a two-year rate increase on the horizon, a new pilot program to help people paying their bills begins in July.

Mungall couldn't say whether the government would apply for rate freezes in the future.

"I don't have a crystal ball, and can't predict what might happen in two or three years from now, but we need to act swiftly now," she said.

"I appreciate the [BCUC's] rationale, I understand it, and we'll be moving forward with other alternatives for making life more affordable."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News