Kazakhstan overtakes Canada as largest uranium producer

FERC Hydropower Licensing Dispute centers on FERC authority, Clean Water Act compliance, state water quality certifications, Federal Power Act timelines, and Army Corps dams on West Virginia's Monongahela River licenses.

Key Points

An inquiry into FERC's licensing process and state water quality authority for hydropower at Monongahela River dams.

✅ Questions on omitted state water quality conditions

✅ Debate over starting Clean Water Act certification timelines

✅ Potential impacts on states' rights and licensing schedules

As federal lawmakers, including Democrats pressing FERC, plan to consider a bill that would expand Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing authority, questions emerged on Tuesday about the process used by FERC to issue two hydropower licenses for existing dams in West Virginia.

In a letter to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee, Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as electricity pricing changes were being debated, raised questions about hydropower licenses issued for two dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Monongahela River in West Virginia.

U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, Bobby Rush (D-IL), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Sarbanes (D-MD), amid Maryland clean energy enforcement concerns, questioned why FERC did not incorporate all conditions outlined in a West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection water quality certificate into plans for the projects.

“By denying the state its allotted time to review this application and submit requirements on these licenses, FERC is undermining the state’s authority under the Clean Water Act and Federal Power Act to impose conditions that will ensure water quality standards are met,” the letter stated.

The House of Representatives was slated to consider the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043, later in the week. The measure would expand FERC authority over licensing processes, a theme mirrored in Maine's transmission line debate over interstate energy projects. Opponents of the bill argue that the changes would make it more difficult for states to protect their clean water interests.

West Virginia has announced plans to challenge FERC hydropower licenses for the dams on the Monongahela River, echoing Northern Pass opposition seen in New Hampshire.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

China Power Demand-Emissions Gap highlights surging grid demand outpacing renewables, with coal filling shortages despite record solar, wind, EV charging, and hydrogen growth, threatening decarbonization targets and net-zero pathways through 2030.

Key Points

China's power demand outpaces renewables, keeping coal dominant and raising emissions risk through the 2020s.

✅ Record solar and wind still lag fast grid demand growth

✅ Coal fills gaps as EV charging and hydrogen loads rise

✅ Forecasts diverge: CEC bullish vs IEA, BNEF conservative

Here’s a new obstacle that could prevent the world finally turning the corner on climate change: Imagine that over the coming decade a whole new economy the size of Russia were to pop up out of nowhere. With the world’s fourth-largest electricity sector and largest burden of power plant emissions after China, the U.S. and India, this new economy on its own would be enough to throw out efforts to halt global warming — especially if it keeps on growing through the 2030s.

That’s the risk inherent in China’s seemingly insatiable appetite for grid power, as surging electricity demand is putting systems under strain worldwide.

From the cracking pace of renewable build-out last year, you might think the country had broken the back of its carbon addiction. A record 55 gigawatts of solar power and 48 gigawatts of wind were connected — comparable to installing the generation capacity of Mexico in less than 12 months. This year will see an even faster pace, with 93 GW of solar and 50 GW of wind added, according to a report last week from the China Electricity Council, an industry association.

That progress could in theory see the country’s power sector emissions peak within months, rather than the late-2020s date the government has hinted at. Combined with a smaller quantity of hydro and nuclear, low-emissions sources will probably add about 310 terawatt-hours to zero-carbon generation this year. That 3.8% increase would be sufficient to power the U.K.

Countries that have reached China’s levels of per-capita electricity consumption (already on a par with most of Europe) typically see growth rates at less than half that level, even as global power demand has surged past pre-pandemic levels in recent years. Grid supply could grow at a faster pace than Brazil, Iran, South Korea or Thailand managed over the past decade without adding a ton of additional carbon to the atmosphere.

There’s a problem with that picture, however. If electricity demand grows at an even more headlong pace, there simply won’t be enough renewables to supply the grid. Fossil fuels, overwhelmingly coal, will fill the gap, a reminder of the iron law of climate dynamics in energy transitions.

Such an outcome looks distinctly possible. Electricity consumption in 2021 grew at an extraordinary rate of 10%, and will increase again by between 5% and 6% this year, according to the CEC. That suggests the country is on pace to match the CEC’s forecasts of bullish grid demand over the coming decade, with generation hitting 11,300 terawatt-hours in 2030. External analysts, such as the International Energy Agency and BloombergNEF, envisage a more modest growth to around 10,000 TWh. 

The difference between those two outlooks is vast — equivalent to all the electricity produced by Russia or Japan. If the CEC is right and the IEA and BloombergNEF are wrong, even the furious rate of renewable installations we’re seeing now won’t be enough to rein in China’s power-sector emissions.

Who’s correct? On one hand, it’s fair to say that power planners usually err on the side of overestimation. If your forecast for electricity demand is too high, state-owned generators will be less profitable than they otherwise would have been — but if it’s too low, you’ll see power cuts and shutdowns like China witnessed last autumn, with resulting power woes affecting supply chains beyond its borders.

On the other hand, the decarbonization of China’s economy itself should drive electricity demand well above what we’ve seen in the past, with some projections such as electricity meeting 60% of energy use by 2060 pointing to a profound shift. Some 3.3 million electric vehicles were sold in 2021 and BloombergNEF estimates a further 5.7 million will be bought in 2022. Every million EVs will likely add in the region of 2 TWh of load to the grid. Those sums quickly mounts up in a country where electric drivetrains are taking over a market that shifts more than 25 million new cars a year.

Decarbonizing industry, a key element on China’s road to zero emissions, could also change the picture. The IEA sees the country building 25 GW of electolysers to produce hydrogen by 2030, enough to consume some 200 TWh on their own if run close to full-time.

That’s still not enough to justify the scale of demand being forecast, though. China is already one of the least efficient countries in the world when it comes to translating energy into economic growth, and despite official pressure on the most wasteful, so called “dual-high” industries such as steel, oil refining, glass and cement, its targets for more thrifty energy usage remain pedestrian.

The countries that have decarbonized fastest are those, such as Germany, the U.K and the U.S., where Americans are using less electricity, that have seen power demand plateau or even decline, giving new renewable power a chance to swap out fossil-fired generators without chasing an ever-increasing burden on the grid. China’s inability to do this as its population peaks and energy consumption hits developed-country levels isn’t a sign of strength.

Instead, it’s a sign of a country that’s chronically unable to make the transition away from polluting heavy industry and toward the common prosperity and ecological civilization that its president keeps promising. Until China reins in that credit-fueled development model, the risks to its economy and the global climate will only increase.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Clean Electricity Standard (CES) sets utility emissions targets, uses tradable credits, and advances decarbonization via technology-agnostic benchmarks, carbon capture, renewable portfolio standards, upstream methane accounting, and cap-and-trade alternatives in reconciliation policy.

Key Points

CES sets utility emissions targets using tradable credits and benchmarks to drive power-sector decarbonization.

✅ Annual clean energy targets phased to 2050

✅ Tradable credits for compliance across utilities

✅ Includes upstream methane and lifecycle emissions

The Biden Administration and Democratic members of Congress have supported including a clean electricity standard (CES) in the upcoming reconciliation bill. A CES is an alternative to pricing carbon dioxide through a tax or cap-and-trade program and focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced during electricity generation by establishing targets, while early assessments show mixed results so far. In principle, it is a technology-agnostic approach. In practice, however, it pushes particular technologies out of the market.

The details of the CES are still being developed, but recent legislation may provide insight into how the CES could operate. In May, Senator Tina Smith and Representative Ben Ray Luján introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019 (CESA), while Minnesota's 100% carbon-free mandate offers a state-level parallel, and in January 2020, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act. Both bills increase the clean energy target annually until 2050 in order to phase out emissions. Both bills also create a credit system where clean sources of electricity as determined by a benchmark, carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt-hour, receive credits. These credits may be transferred, sold, and auctioned so utilities that fail to meet targets can procure credits from others, as large energy customers push to accelerate clean energy globally.

The bills’ benchmarks vary, and while the CLEAN Future Act allows natural gas-fired generators to receive partial credits, CESA does not. Under both bills, these generators would be expected to install carbon capture technology to continue meeting increasing targets for clean electricity generation. Both bills go beyond considering the emissions resulting from generation and include upstream emissions for natural gas-fired generators. Natural gas, a greenhouse gas, that is leaked upstream of a generator during transportation is to be included among its emissions. The CLEAN Future Act also calls for newly constructed hydropower generators to account for the emissions associated with the facility’s construction despite producing clean electricity. These additional provisions demonstrate not only the CES’s inability to fully address the issue of emissions but also the slippery slope of expanding the program to include other markets, echoing cost and reliability concerns as California exports its energy policies across the West.

A majority of states have adopted clean energy, electricity, or renewable portfolio standards, with some considering revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, leaving legislators with plenty of examples to consider. As they weigh their options, legislators should consider if they are effectively addressing the problem at hand, economy-wide emissions reductions, and at what cost, drawing on examples like New Mexico's 100% clean electricity bill to inform trade-offs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Power Rate Increase 2023-2024 approved by the UARB lifts electricity rates 14 percent, citing fuel costs and investments, despite Bill 212; includes ROE 9 percent, decarbonization deferral, and a storm cost recovery rider.

Key Points

An approved UARB rate case raising electricity bills about 14% over 2023-2024, with ROE 9% and cost recovery tools.

✅ UARB approves average 6.9% annual increases for 2023 and 2024.

✅ Maintains 9% ROE; sets storm cost rider trial and decarbonization deferral.

✅ Government opposed via Bill 212, but settlement mostly upheld.

Nova Scotia regulators approved a 14 per cent electricity rate hike on Thursday, defying calls by Premier Tim Houston to reject the increase.

Rates will rise on average by 6.9 per cent each year in 2023 and 2024.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the NL Consumer Advocate called an 18 per cent electricity rate hike unacceptable amid affordability concerns.

The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) issued a 203-page decision ratifying most of the elements in a settlement agreement reached between Nova Scotia Power and customer groups after Houston's government legislated a rate, spending and profit cap on the utility in November.

The board said approval was in the public interest and the increase is "reasonable and appropriate."

"The board cannot simply disallow N.S. Power's reasonable costs to make rates more affordable. These principles ensure fair rates and the financial health of a utility so it can continue to invest in the system providing services to its customers," the three-member panel wrote.

"While the board can (and has) disallowed costs found to be imprudent or unreasonable, absent such a finding, N.S. Power's costs must be reflected in the rates."

In addition to the 14 per cent hike, the board maintained Nova Scotia Power's current return on equity of 9 per cent, with an earnings band of 8.75 to 9.25 per cent. It agreed in principle to establish a decarbonization deferral account to pay for the retirement of coal plants and related decommissioning costs, and implemented a storm cost recovery rider for a three-year trial period.

The board rejected several items in the agreement, including rolling some Maritime Link transmission capital projects into consumers' rates.

Nova Scotia Power welcomed the ruling in a statement, describing it as "the culmination of an extensive and transparent regulatory process over the past year."

Natural Resources and Renewables Minister Tory Rushton, who has said the government cannot order lower power rates in Nova Scotia, stated the UARB decision was not what the government wanted, but he did not indicate the government has any plans to bring forward legislation to overturn it. 

"We're disappointed by the decision today. We've always been very clear that we were standing by ratepayers right from the get-go but we also respect the independent body of the UARB and their decision today."

Pressure from the province
Houston claimed the settlement breached his government's legislation, known as Bill 212 in Nova Scotia, which he said was intended to protect ratepayers. It capped rates to cover non-fuel costs by 1.8 per cent. It did not cap rates to cover fuel costs or energy efficiency programs.

Bill 212 was passed after the board concluded weeks of public hearings into Nova Scotia Power's request for an electricity rate increase, its first general rate application in 10 years. Nova Scotia Power is a subsidiary of Halifax-based Emera, which is a publicly traded company.

The legislation triggered credit downgrades from two credit rating agencies who said it compromised the independence of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, electricity users have begun paying for Muskrat Falls as project costs flow through rates, highlighting broader pressures on Atlantic Canada utilities.

In its decision, the board accepted that legislation was intended to protect ratepayers but did not preclude increases in rates.

"Given the exclusion of fuel and purchased power costs when these were expected to cause significant upward pressure on rates, it also did not preclude large increases in rates. Instead, the protection afforded by the Public Utilities Act amendments appears to be focused on N.S. Power's non-fuel costs, with several amendments targeting N.S. Power's cost of capital and earnings."

The board noted the province was the only intervenor in the rate case to object to the settlement.

Opposition reaction
Rushton said despite the outcome, Bill 212 achieved its goal, which was to protect ratepayers.

"Without Bill 212 the rates would have actually been higher," he said. "It would have double-digit rates for this year and next year and now it's single digits."

NDP Leader Claudia Chender said the end result is that Nova Scotians are still facing "incredibly unaffordable power."

Similar criticism emerged in Saskatchewan after an 8 per cent SaskPower increase, which the NDP opposed during provincial debates.

"It's really unfortunate for a lot of Nova Scotians who are heading into a freezing weekend where heat is not optional."

Chender said a different legislative approach is needed to change the regulatory system, and more needs to be done to help people pay their electricity bills.

Liberal MLA Kelly Regan echoed that sentiment.

"There are lots of people who can absorb this. There are a lot of people who cannot, and those are the people that we should be worried about right now. This is why we've been saying all along the government needs to actually give money directly to Nova Scotians who need help with power rates."

Rushton said the government has introduced programs to help Nova Scotians pay for heat, including raising the income threshold to access the Heating Assistance Rebate Program and creating incentives to install heat pumps.

Elsewhere, some governments have provided a lump-sum credit on electricity bills to ease short-term costs for households.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

British Columbia Green Grid Constraints underscore BC Hydro's rising imports, peak demand, electrification, hydroelectric variability, and transmission bottlenecks, challenging renewable energy expansion, energy security, and CleanBC targets across industry and zero-emission transportation.

Key Points

They are capacity and supply limits straining B.C.'s clean electrification, driving imports and risking reliability.

✅ Record 25% imports in FY2024 raise emissions and costs

✅ Peak demand and transmission limits delay new connections

✅ Drought reduces hydro output; diversified generation needed

British Columbia's ambitious green energy initiatives are encountering significant hurdles due to a strained electrical grid and increasing demand, with a EV demand bottleneck adding pressure. The province's commitment to reducing carbon emissions and transitioning to renewable energy sources is being tested by the limitations of its current power infrastructure.

Rising Demand and Dwindling Supply

In recent years, B.C. has experienced a surge in electricity demand, driven by factors such as population growth, increased use of electric vehicles, and the electrification of industrial processes. However, the province's power supply has struggled to keep pace, and one study projects B.C. would need to at least double its power output to electrify all road vehicles. In fiscal year 2024, BC Hydro imported a record 13,600 gigawatt hours of electricity, accounting for 25% of the province's total consumption. This reliance on external sources, particularly from fossil-fuel-generated power in the U.S. and Alberta, raises concerns about energy security and sustainability.

Infrastructure Limitations

The current electrical grid is facing capacity constraints, especially during peak demand periods, and regional interties such as a proposed Yukon connection are being discussed to improve reliability. A report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation highlighted that B.C. could be classified as an "at-risk" area for power generation as early as 2026. This assessment underscores the urgency of addressing infrastructure deficiencies to ensure a reliable and resilient energy supply.

Government Initiatives and Investments

In response to these challenges, the provincial government has outlined plans to expand the electrical system. Premier David Eby announced a 10-year, $36-billion investment to enhance the grid's capacity, including grid development and job creation measures to support local economies. The initiative focuses on increasing electrification, upgrading high-voltage transmission lines, refurbishing existing generating facilities, and expanding substations. These efforts aim to meet the growing demand and support the transition to clean energy sources.

The Role of Renewable Energy

Renewable energy sources, particularly hydroelectric power, play a central role in B.C.'s energy strategy. However, the province's reliance on hydroelectricity has its challenges. Drought conditions in recent years have led to reduced water levels in reservoirs, impacting the generation capacity of hydroelectric plants. This variability underscores the need for a diversified energy mix, with options like a hydrogen project complementing hydro, to ensure a stable and reliable power supply.

Balancing Environmental Goals and Energy Needs

B.C.'s commitment to environmental sustainability is evident in its policies, such as the CleanBC initiative, which aims to phase out natural gas heating in new homes by 2030 and achieve 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, supported by networks like B.C.'s Electric Highway that expand charging access. While these goals are commendable, they place additional pressure on the electrical grid. The increased demand from electric vehicles and electrified heating systems necessitates a corresponding expansion in power generation and distribution infrastructure.

British Columbia's green energy ambitions are commendable and align with global efforts to combat climate change. However, achieving these goals requires a robust and resilient electrical grid capable of meeting the increasing demand for power. The province's reliance on external power sources and the challenges posed by climate variability highlight the need for strategic investments in infrastructure and a diversified energy portfolio, guided by BC Hydro review recommendations to keep electricity affordable. By addressing these challenges proactively, B.C. can pave the way for a sustainable and secure energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News