Renewables to be excluded from budget cuts

Manitoba Hydro unpaid leave plan offers unpaid days off to curb workforce costs amid COVID-19, avoiding temporary layoffs and pay cuts, targeting $5.7M savings through executive, manager, and engineer participation, with union options under discussion.

Key Points

A cost-saving measure offering unpaid days off to avert layoffs and pay cuts, targeting $5.7M savings amid COVID-19.

✅ 3 unpaid days for executives, managers, engineers

✅ Targets $5.7M total; $1.4M from non-union staff

✅ Avoids about 240 layoffs over a four-month period

The Manitoba government's Crown energy utility is offering workers unpaid days off as an alternative to temporary layoffs or pay cuts, even as residential electricity use rises due to more working from home.

In an email to employees, Manitoba Hydro president Jay Grewal says executives, managers, and engineers will take three unpaid days off before the fiscal year ends next March.

She says similar options are being discussed with other employee groups, which are represented by unions, as the Saskatchewan COVID-19 crisis reshaped workforces across the Prairies.

The provincial government ordered Manitoba Hydro to reduce workforce costs during the COVID-19 pandemic, as some power operators considered on-site staffing plans, and at one point the utility said it was looking at 600 to 700 temporary layoffs.

The organization said it’s looking for targeted savings of $5.7 million, down from $11 million previously estimated, while peers like BC Hydro’s Site C began reporting COVID-19 updates.

A spokesperson for Manitoba Hydro said non-unionized staff taking three days of unpaid leave will save $1.4 million of the $5.7 million savings.

“Three days of unpaid leave for every employee would eliminate layoffs entirely,” the spokesperson said in an email. “For comparison, approximately 240 layoffs would have to occur over a four-month period, while measures like Alberta's worker transition fund aim to support displaced workers, to achieve savings of $4.3 million.”

Grewal says the unpaid days off were a preferred option among the executives, managers, and engineers in an industry that recently saw a Hydro One worker injury case.

She says unions representing the other workers have been asked to respond by next Wednesday.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Mercury Energy Tilt Renewables acquisition signals a trans-Tasman energy push as PowAR and Mercury split assets via a scheme of arrangement, offering $7.80 per share and a $2.96b valuation across Australia and New Zealand.

Key Points

A PowAR-Mercury deal to buy Tilt Renewables, splitting Australian and New Zealand assets via a court-approved scheme.

✅ $7.80 per share, valuing Tilt at $2.96b

✅ PowAR takes AU assets; Mercury gets NZ business

✅ Infratil and Mercury to vote for the scheme

Mercury Energy and an Australian partner appear to have won the race to buy Tilt Renewables, an Australasian wind farm developer which was spun out of TrustPower, bidding almost $3 billion, amid wider utility consolidation such as the Peterborough Distribution sale to Hydro One.

Yesterday Tilt Renewables announced that it had entered a scheme implementation agreement under which it was proposed that PowAR would acquire its Australian business and Mercury would acquire the New Zealand business, mirroring cross-border approvals where U.S. antitrust clearance shaped Hydro One's bid for Avista.

Conducted through a scheme of arrangement, Tilt shareholders will be offered $7.80 a share, valuing Tilt at $2.96b.

Yesterday morning shares in Tilt opened about 18 per cent up at $7.65, though regulatory outcomes can swing valuations as seen when Hydro One-Avista reconsideration of a U.S. order came into play.

In early December Infratil, which owns around two thirds of Tilt's shares, announced it was undertaking a review of its investment after receiving approaches, with investor sentiment sensitive to governance shifts as when Hydro One shares fell after leadership changes in Ontario.

According to a report in the Australian Financial Review, the transtasman bid beat out other parties including ASX-listed APA Group, Canadian pension fund CDPQ and Australian fund manager Infrastructure Capital Group, as Canadian investors like Ontario Teachers' Plan pursue similar infrastructure deals.

“This compelling acquisition proposal is a result of Tilt Renewables’ constant focus on delivering long-term value for shareholders and the board is pleased that, with these new owners, the transition to renewables in Australia and New Zealand will continue to accelerate,” Tilt’s chairman Bruce Harker said.

Comparable community-led clean energy partnerships, such as initiatives with British Columbia First Nations highlighted in clean-energy generation, underscore the broader momentum.

Just prior to the announcement, Tilt shares had been trading for less than $4. Such repricing reflects how utilities can face perceived uncertainties, as one investor argued too many unknowns at the time.

Mercury is already Tilt’s second largest shareholder, at just under 20 per cent. Both Infratil and Mercury have agreed to vote in favour of the scheme. The deal values Tilt’s New Zealand business at $770m, however the value of Mercury’s existing shareholding is around $585m, meaning the company will increase debt by around $185m.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Mexico Energy Reform Defeat underscores opposition unity as CFE-first rules, state regulators, and lithium nationalization falter amid USMCA concerns, investment risks, and clean energy transition impacts in Congress over power generation policy.

Key Points

The failed push to expand CFE control, flagged for USMCA risks, higher costs, regulator shifts, and slower clean energy transition.

✅ Bill to mandate 54% CFE generation and priority dispatch failed.

✅ Opposition cited USMCA breaches, higher prices, slower clean energy.

✅ Lithium nationalization to return via separate legislation.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's plan to increase state control of power generation was defeated in parliament on Sunday, as opposition parties united in the face of a bill they said would hurt investment and breach international obligations, concerns mirrored by rulings such as the Florida court on electricity monopolies that scrutinize market concentration.

His National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) and its allies fell nearly 60 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed in the 500-seat lower house of Congress, mustering just 275 votes after a raucous session that lasted more than 12 hours.

Seeking to roll back previous constitutional reforms that liberalized the electricity market, Lopez Obrador's proposed changes would have done away with a requirement that state-owned Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE) sell the cheapest electricity first, a move reminiscent of debates when energy groups warned on pricing changes under federal proposals, allowing it to sell its own electricity ahead of other power companies.

Under the bill, the CFE would also have been set to generate a minimum of 54% of the country's total electricity, and energy regulation would have been shifted from independent bodies to state regulators, paralleling concerns raised when a Calgary retailer opposed a market overhaul over regulatory impacts.

The contentious proposals faced much criticism from business groups and the United States, Mexico's top trade partner as well as other allies who argued it would violate the regional trade deal, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), even as the USA looks to Canada for green power to deepen cross-border energy ties.

Lopez Obrador had argued the bill would have protected consumers and made the country more energy independent, echoing how Texas weighs market reforms to avoid blackouts to bolster reliability, saying the legislation was vital to his plans to "transform" Mexico.

Although the odds were against his party, he came into the vote seeking to leverage his victory in last weekend's referendum on his leadership.

Speaking ahead of the vote, Jorge Alvarez Maynez, a lawmaker from the opposition Citizens' Movement party, said the proposals, if enacted, would damage Mexico, pointing to experiences like the Texas electricity market bailout after a severe winter storm as cautionary examples.

"There isn't a specialist, academic, environmentalist or activist with a smidgen of doubt - this bill would increase electricity prices, slow the transition to (clean) energy in our country and violate international agreements," he added.

Supporters of clean-energy goals noted that subnational shifts, such as the New Mexico 100% clean electricity bill can illustrate alternative pathways to reform.

The bill also contained a provision to nationalize lithium resources.

Lopez Obrador said this week that if the bill was defeated, he would send another bill to Congress on Monday aiming to have at least the lithium portion of the proposed legislation passed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Maritime Link Cable Burial safeguards 200-kV subsea cables in the Cabot Strait as Emera and Nova Scotia Power trench lines to mitigate bottom trawling risks from a redfish boom, ensuring Muskrat Falls hydro delivery.

Key Points

Trenching Cabot Strait subsea power cables to prevent redfish-driven bottom trawling and ensure Muskrat Falls power.

✅ $14.492M spent trenching 59 km at 400 m depth

✅ Protects 200-kV, 170-km subsea interconnects from trawls

✅ Driven by Gulf redfish boom; DFO and UARB consultations

The parent company of Nova Scotia Power disclosed this week to the Utility and Review Board, amid Site C dam watchdog attention to major hydro projects, that it spent almost $14,492,000 this summer to bury its Maritime Links cables lying on the floor of the Cabot Strait between Newfoundland and Cape Breton.

It's a fish story no one saw coming, at least not Halifax-based energy conglomerate Emera.

The parent company of Nova Scotia Power disclosed this week to the Utility and Review Board that it spent almost $14,492,000 this summer to bury its Maritime Link cables lying on the floor of the Cabot Strait between Newfoundland and Cape Breton.

The cables were protected because an unprecedented explosion in the redfish population in the Gulf of St Lawrence is about to trigger a corresponding boom in bottom trawling in the area.

Also known as ocean perch, redfish were not on anyone's radar when the $1.5-billion Maritime Link was designed and built to carry Muskrat Falls hydroelectricity from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia.

The two 200-kilovolt electrical submarine cables spanning the Cabot Strait are the longest in North America, compared with projects like the New England Clean Power Link planned further south. They are each 170 kilometres long and weigh 5,500 tonnes.

Nova Scotia Power customers are paying for the Maritime Link in return for a minimum of 20 per cent of the electricity generated by Muskrat Falls over 35 years.

The electricity is supposed to start sending first electricity through the Maritime Link in mid-2020.

First time cost disclosed
In August, the company buried 59 kilometres of subsea cables one metre below the bottom at depths of 400 metres.

"These cables had not been previously trenched due to the absence of fishing activities at those depths when the cables were originally installed," spokesperson Jeff Myrick wrote in an email to CBC News in October.

Ratepayers will get the bill next year, as utilities also face risks like copper theft that can drive costs in the region. Until now, the company had declined to release costs relating to protecting the Maritime Link.

The bill will be presented to regulators, a process that has affected projects such as a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota, when the company applies to recover Maritime Link costs from Nova Scotia Power ratepayers in 2020.

Myrick said the company was acting after consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Unexpected consequences
After years of overfishing in the 1980s and early 1990s, redfish quotas were slashed and a moratorium imposed on some redfish.

Confusingly, there are actually two redfish species in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

But very strong recent year classes, that have coincided with warming waters in the gulf, as utilities adapt to climate change considerations grow, have produced redfish in massive numbers.

After years of overfishing, the redfish population is now booming in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. (Submitted by Marine Institute)
There is now believed to be three-million tonnes of redfish in the Gulf of St Lawrence.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is expected to increase quotas in the coming years and the fishing industry is gearing up in a big way.

Earlier this month, Scotia Harvest announced it will begin construction of a new $14-million fish plant in Digby next spring in part to process increased redfish catches.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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