Street shocks will always be a problem

Blood Nickel spotlights ethical sourcing in the EV supply chain, linking nickel mining to human rights, environmental impact, ESG standards, and Canadian leadership in sustainable extraction, transparency, and community engagement across global battery materials markets.

Key Points

Blood Nickel is nickel mined under unethical or harmful conditions, raising ESG, human rights, and environmental risks.

✅ Links EV battery supply chains to social and environmental harm

✅ Calls for transparency, traceability, and ethical sourcing standards

✅ Highlights Canada's role in sustainable mining and community benefits

The rise of electric vehicles (EVs) has sparked a surge in demand for essential battery components, particularly nickel, and related cobalt market pressures essential for their batteries. This demand has ignited concerns about the environmental and social impacts of nickel mining, particularly in regions where standards may not meet global sustainability benchmarks. This article explores the concept of "blood nickel," its implications for the environment and communities, and Canada's potential role in promoting sustainable mining practices.

The Global Nickel Boom

As the automotive industry shifts towards electric vehicles, nickel has emerged as a critical component for lithium-ion batteries due to its ability to store energy efficiently. This surge in demand has led to a global scramble for nickel, with major producers ramping up extraction efforts to meet market needs amid EV shortages and wait times that underscore supply constraints. However, this rapid expansion has raised alarms about the environmental consequences of nickel mining, including deforestation, water pollution, and carbon emissions from energy-intensive extraction processes.

Social Impacts: The Issue of "Blood Nickel"

Beyond environmental concerns, the term "blood nickel" has emerged to describe nickel mined under conditions that exploit workers, disregard human rights, or fail to uphold ethical labor standards. In some regions, nickel mining has been linked to issues such as child labor, unsafe working conditions, and displacement of indigenous communities. This has prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability in global supply chains, with initiatives like U.S.-ally efforts to secure EV metals aiming to align sourcing standards, to ensure that the benefits of EV production do not come at the expense of vulnerable populations.

Canada's Position and Potential

Canada, home to significant nickel deposits, stands at a pivotal juncture in the global EV revolution, supported by EV assembly deals in Canada that strengthen domestic manufacturing. With its robust regulatory framework, commitment to environmental stewardship, and advanced mining technologies, Canada has the potential to lead by example in sustainable nickel mining practices. Canadian companies are already exploring innovations such as cleaner extraction methods, renewable energy integration, and community engagement initiatives to minimize the environmental footprint and enhance social benefits of nickel mining.

Challenges and Opportunities

Despite Canada's potential, the mining industry faces challenges in balancing economic growth with environmental and social responsibility and building integrated supply chains, including downstream investments like a battery plant in Niagara that can connect materials to markets. Achieving sustainable mining practices requires collaboration among governments, industry stakeholders, and local communities to establish clear guidelines, monitor compliance, and invest in responsible resource development. This approach not only mitigates environmental impacts but also fosters long-term economic stability and social well-being in mining regions.

Pathways to Sustainability

Moving forward, Canada can play a pivotal role in shaping the global nickel supply chain by promoting transparency, ethical sourcing, and environmental stewardship. This includes advocating for international standards that prioritize sustainable mining practices, supporting research and development of cleaner technologies, and leveraging adjacent resources such as Alberta lithium potential to diversify battery supply chains, while fostering partnerships with global stakeholders to ensure a fair and equitable transition to a low-carbon economy.

Conclusion

The rapid growth of electric vehicles has propelled nickel into the spotlight, highlighting both its strategic importance and the challenges associated with its extraction. As global demand for "green" metals intensifies, addressing the concept of "blood nickel" becomes increasingly urgent, even as trade measures like tariffs on Chinese EVs continue to reshape market incentives. Canada, with its rich nickel reserves and commitment to sustainability, has an opportunity to lead the charge towards ethical and responsible mining practices. By leveraging its strengths in innovation, regulation, and community engagement, Canada can help forge a path towards a more sustainable future where electric vehicles drive progress without compromising environmental integrity or social justice.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

BC Energy Debate: Nuclear Power and LNG divides British Columbia, as a new survey weighs zero-emission clean energy, hydroelectric capacity, the Site C dam, EV mandates, energy security, rising costs, and blackout risks.

Key Points

A BC-wide debate on power choices balancing nuclear, LNG, hydro, costs, climate goals, EVs, and grid reliability.

✅ Survey: 43% support nuclear, 40% oppose in BC

✅ 55% back LNG expansion, led by Southern BC

✅ Hydro at 90%; Site C adds 1,100 MW by 2025

There is a long-term need to produce more electricity to meet population and economic growth needs and, in particular, create new clean energy sources, with two new BC generating stations recently commissioned contributing to capacity.

Increasingly, in the worldwide discourse on climate change, nuclear power plants are being touted as a zero-emission clean energy source, with Ontario exploring large-scale nuclear to expand capacity, and a key solution towards meeting reduced emissions goals. New technological advancements could make nuclear power far safer than existing plant designs.

When queried on whether British Columbia should support nuclear power for electricity generation, respondents in a new province-wide survey by Research Co. were split, with 43% in favour and 40% against.

Levels of support reached 46% in Metro Vancouver, 41% in the Fraser Valley, 44% in Southern BC, 39% in Northern BC, and 36% on Vancouver Island.

The closest nuclear power plant to BC is the Columbia Generating Station, located in southern Washington State.

The safe use of nuclear power came to the forefront following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster when the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan triggered a large tsunami that damaged the plant’s emergency generators. Japan subsequently shut off many of its nuclear power plants and increased its reliance on fossil fuel imports, but in recent years there has been a policy reversal to restart shuttered nuclear plants to provide the nation with improved energy security.

Over the past decade, Germany has also been undergoing a transition away from nuclear power. But in an effort to replace Russian natural gas, Germany is now using more coal for power generation than ever before in decades, while Ontario’s electricity outlook suggests a shift to a dirtier mix, and it is looking to expand its use of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Last summer, German chancellor Olaf Scholz told the CBC he wants Canada to increase its shipments of LNG gas to Europe. LNG, which is greener compared to coal and oil, is generally seen as a transitionary fuel source for parts of the world that currently depend on heavy polluting fuels for power generation.

When the Research Co. survey asked BC residents whether they support the further development of the province’s LNG industry, including LNG electricity demand that BC Hydro says justifies Site C, 55% of respondents were supportive, while 29% were opposed and 17% undecided.

Support for the expansion of the LNG is highest in Southern BC (67%), followed by the Fraser Valley (56%), Metro Vancouver (also 56%), Northern BC (55%), and Vancouver Island (41%).

A larger proportion of BC residents are against any idea of the provincial government moving to ban the use of natural gas for stoves and heating in new buildings, with 45% opposed and 39% in support.

Significant majorities of BC residents are concerned that energy costs could become too expensive, and a report on coal phase-outs underscores potential cost and effectiveness concerns, with 84% expressing concern for residents and 66% for businesses. As well, 70% are concerned that energy shortages could lead to measures such as rationing and rolling blackouts.

Currently, about 90% of BC’s electricity is produced by hydroelectric dams, but this fluctuates throughout the year — at times, BC imports coal- and gas-generated power from the United States when hydro output is low.

According to BC Hydro’s five-year electrification plan released in September 2021, it is estimated BC has a sufficient supply of clean electricity only by 2030, including the capacity of the Site C dam, which is slated to open in 2025. The $16 billion dam will have an output capacity of 1,100 megawatts or enough power for the equivalent of 450,000 homes.

The provincial government’s strategy for pushing vehicles towards becoming dependent on the electrical grid also necessitates a reliable supply of power, prompting BC Hydro’s first call for power in 15 years to prepare for electrification. Most BC residents support the provincial government’s requirement for all new car and passenger truck sales to be zero-emission by 2035, with 75% supporting the goal and 21% opposed.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

OPG-TVA SMR Partnership advances advanced nuclear technology and small modular reactors for 24/7 carbon-free baseload power, enabling net-zero goals, cross-border licensing, and deployment within a North American clean energy hub.

Key Points

A cross-border effort by OPG and TVA to develop, license, and deploy SMRs for reliable, carbon-free baseload power.

✅ Coordinates design, licensing, construction, and operations

✅ Supports 24/7 baseload, net-zero targets, and energy security

✅ Leverages Darlington and Clinch River early site permits

Two of North America's leading nuclear utilities unveiled a pioneering partnership to develop advanced nuclear technology as an integral part of a clean energy future and creating a North American energy hub. Ontario Power Generation, whose OPG's SMR commitment is well established, and the Tennessee Valley Authority will jointly work to help develop small modular reactors as an effective long-term source of 24/7 carbon-free energy in both Canada and the U.S.

The agreement allows the companies to coordinate their explorations into the design, licensing, construction and operation of small modular reactors.

"As leaders in our industry and nations, OPG and TVA share a common goal to decarbonize energy generation while maintaining reliability and low-cost service, which our customers expect and deserve," said Jeff Lyash, TVA President and CEO. "Advanced nuclear technology will not only help us meet our net-zero carbon targets but will also advance North American energy security."

"Nuclear energy has long been key to Ontario's clean electricity grid, and is a crucial part of our net-zero future," said Ken Hartwick, OPG President and CEO. "Working together, OPG and TVA will find efficiencies and share best practices for the long-term supply of the economical, carbon-free, reliable electricity our jurisdictions need, supported by ongoing Pickering life extensions across Ontario's fleet."

OPG and TVA have similar histories and missions. Both are based on public power models that developed from renewable hydroelectric generation before adding nuclear to their generation mixes. Today, nuclear generation accounts for significant portions of their carbon-free energy portfolios, with Ontario advancing the Pickering B refurbishment to sustain capacity.

Both are also actively exploring SMR technologies. OPG is moving forward with plans to deploy an SMR at its Darlington nuclear facility in Clarington, ON, as part of broader Darlington SMR plans now underway. The Darlington site is the only location in Canada licensed for new nuclear with a completed and accepted Environmental Assessment. TVA currently holds the only Nuclear Regulatory Commission Early Site Permit in the U.S. for small modular reactor deployment at its Clinch River site near Oak Ridge, TN.

No exchange of funding is involved. However, the collaboration agreement will help OPG and TVA reduce the financial risk that comes from development of innovative technology, as well as future deployment costs.

"TVA has the most recent experience completing a new nuclear plant in North America at Watts Bar and that knowledge is invaluable to us as we work toward the first SMR groundbreaking at Darlington," said Hartwick. "Likewise, because we are a little further along in our construction timing, TVA will gain the advantage of our experience before they start work at Clinch River."

"It's a win-win agreement that benefits all of those served by both OPG and TVA, as well as our nations," said Lyash. "Moving this technology forward is not only a significant step in advancing a clean energy future and Canada's climate goals, but also in creating a North American energy hub."

"With the demand for clean electricity on the rise around the world, Ontario's momentum is growing. The world is watching Ontario as we advance our work to fully unleash our nuclear advantage, alongside a premiers' SMR initiative that underscores provincial collaboration. I congratulate OPG and TVA – two great industry leaders – for working together to deploy SMRs and showcase and apply Canada's nuclear expertise that will deliver economic, health and environmental benefits for all of us to enjoy," said Todd Smith, Ontario Minister of Energy.

"The changing climate is a global crisis that requires global solutions. The partnership between the Tennessee Valley Authority and Ontario Power Generation to develop and deploy advanced nuclear technology is exactly the kind of innovative collaboration that is needed to quickly bring the next generation of nuclear carbon-free generation to market. I applaud the leadership that both companies are demonstrating to further strengthen our cross-border relationships," said Maria Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute.

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

Ontario Electricity Policy debates rates, subsidies, renewables, nuclear baseload, and Quebec hydro imports, highlighting grid transmission limits, community consultation, conservation, and the province's energy mix after cancelled wind projects and rising costs to taxpayers.

Key Points

Ontario Electricity Policy guides rates, generation, grid planning, subsidies and imports for reliable, low-cost power.

✅ Focuses on rates, subsidies, and consumer affordability

✅ Balances nuclear baseload, renewables, and Quebec hydro imports

✅ Emphasizes grid transmission, consultation, and conservation

When Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals went down to defeat at the hands of Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, Ontario electricity had a lot to do with it. That was in 2018. Now, two years later, Ford’s government has electricity issues of its own, including a new stance on wind power that continues to draw scrutiny.

Electricity is politically fraught in Ontario. It’s among the most expensive in Canada. And it has been mismanaged at least as far back as nuclear energy cost overruns starting in the 1980s.

From the start Wynne’s government was tainted by the gas plant scandal of her predecessor Dalton McGuinty and then she created her own with the botched roll-out of her green energy plan. And that helped Ford get elected promising to lower electricity prices. But, rates haven’t gone down under Ford while the cost to the government coffers for subsidizing them have soared - now costing $5.6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, Ford’s government has spent at least $230 million to tear up green energy contracts signed by the former Liberal government, including two wind-farm projects that were already mid-construction.

Lessons learned?
In the final part of a three-part series, the six candidates vying to become the next leader of the Ontario Liberals discuss the province's electricity system, including the lessons learned from the prior Liberal government's botched attempts to fix it that led to widespread local opposition to a string of wind power projects, and whether they'd agree to import more hydroelectricity from Quebec.

“We had the right idea but didn’t stick the landing,” said Steven Del Duca, a member of the former Wynne government who lost his Vaughan-area seat in 2018, referring to its green-energy plan. “We need to make sure that we work more collaboratively with local communities to gain the buy-in needed to be successful in this regard.”

“Consultation and listening is key,” agreed Mitzie Hunter, who was education minister under Kathleen Wynne and in 2018 retained her seat in the legislature representing Scarborough-Guildwood. “We must seek input from community members about investments locally,” she said. “Inviting experts in to advise on major policy is also important to make evidence-based decisions."

Michael Coteau, MPP for Don Valley East and the third leadership candidate who was a member of the former government, called for “a new relationship of respect and collaboration with municipalities.”

He said there is an “important balance to be achieved between pursuing province wide objectives for green-energy initiatives and recognizing and reflecting unique local conditions and circumstances.”

Kate Graham, who has worked in municipal public service and has not held a provincial public office, said that experts and local communities are best placed to shape decisions in the sector.

In the final part of a three-part series, Ontario's Liberal leadership contenders discuss electricity, lessons learned from the bungled rollout of previous Liberal green policy, and whether to lean more on Quebec's hydroelectricity.
“What's gotten Ontario in trouble in the past is when Queen's Park politicians are the ones micromanaging the electricity file,” she said.

“Community consultation is vitally important to the long-term success of infrastructure projects,” said Alvin Tedjo, a former policy adviser to Liberal ministers Brad Duguid and Glen Murray.

“Community voices must be heard and listened to when large-scale energy programs are going to be implemented,” agreed Brenda Hollingsworth, a personal injury lawyer making her first foray into politics.

Of the six candidates, only Coteau went beyond reflection to suggest a path forward, saying he would review the distribution of responsibilities between the province and municipalities, with the aim of empowering cities and towns.

Turn back to Quebec?
Ford’s government has also turned away from a deal signed in 2016 to import hydroelectricity from Quebec.

Graham and Hunter both said they would consider increasing such imports. Hunter noted that the deal, which would displace domestic natural gas production, will lower the cost of electricity paid by Ontario ratepayers by a net total of $38 million from 2017 to 2023, according to the province’s fiscal watchdog.

“I am open to working with our neighbouring province,” Hunter said. “This is especially important as we seek to bring electricity to remote northern, on-reserve Indigenous communities.”

Tedjo said he has no issues with importing clean energy as long as it’s at a fair price.

Hollingsworth and Coteau both said they would withhold judgment until they could see the province’s capacity status in 2022.

“In evaluating the case for increasing importation of water power from Quebec, we must realistically assess the limitations of the existing transmission system and the cost and time required to scale up transmission infrastructure, among other factors,” Coteau said.

Del Duca also took a wait-and-see approach. “This will depend on our energy needs and energy mix,” he said. “I want to see our energy needs go down; we need more efficiency and better conservation to make that happen.”

What's the right energy mix?
Nuclear energy currently accounts for about a third of Ontario’s energy-producing capacity, even as Canada explores zero-emissions electricity by 2035 pathways. But it actually supplies about 60 percent of Ontario’s electricity. That is because nuclear reactors are always on, producing so-called baseload power.

Hydroelectricity provides another 25 percent of supply, while oil and natural gas contribute 6 per cent and wind adds 7 percent. Both solar and biofuels account for less than one percent of Ontario’s energy supply. However, a much larger amount of solar is not counted in this tally, as it is used at or near the sites where it is generated, and never enters the transmission system.

Asked for their views on how large a role various sources of power should play in Ontario’s electricity mix in the future, the candidates largely backed the idea of renewable energy, but offered little specifics.

Graham repeated her statement that experts and communities should drive that conversation. Tedjo said all non-polluting technologies should play a role in Ontario’s energy mix, as provinces like Alberta demonstrate parallel growth in green energy and fossil fuels. Coteau said we need a mix of renewable-energy sources, without offering specifics.

“We also need to pursue carbon capture and sequestration, working in particular with our farming communities,” he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Clean Energy Tax Incentives could expand under Democratic proposals, including ITC, PTC, and EV tax credits, boosting renewable energy, energy storage, and grid modernization within a broader infrastructure package influenced by Green New Deal goals.

Key Points

Federal incentives like ITC, PTC, and EV credits that cut costs and speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades.

✅ Proposes permanence for ITC, PTC, and EV tax credits

✅ Could accelerate solar, wind, storage, and grid upgrades

✅ Passage depends on bipartisan infrastructure compromise

The 115th U.S. Congress has not even adjourned for the winter, and already a newly resurgent Democratic Party is making demands that reflect its majority status in the U.S. House come January.

Climate appears to be near the top of the list. Last Thursday, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Democratic Leader in the Senate, sent a letter to President Trump demanding that any infrastructure package taken up in 2019 include “policies and funding to transition to a clean energy economy and mitigate the risks that the United States is already facing due to climate change.”

And in a list of policies that Schumer says should be included, the top item is “permanent tax incentives for domestic production of clean electricity and storage, energy efficient homes and commercial buildings, electric vehicles, and modernizing the electric grid.”

In concrete terms, this could mean an extension of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar and energy storage, the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind and the federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credit program as well.

Pressure from the Left

This strong statement on climate change, clean energy and infrastructure investment comes as at least 30 incoming members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed onto a call for the creation of a committee to explore a “Green New Deal” and to move the nation to 100% renewable energy by 2030.*

It also comes as Schumer has come under fire by activists for rumors that he plans to replace Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) with coal state Democrat Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) as the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

As such, one possible way to read these moves is that centrist leaders like Schumer are responding to pressure from an energized and newly elected Left wing of the Democratic Party. It is notable that Schumer’s program includes many of the aims of the Green New Deal, while avoiding any explicit use of that phrase.

Implications of a potential ITC extension

The details of levels and timelines are important here, particularly for the ITC.

The ITC was set to expire at the end of 2016, but was extended in legislative horse-trading at the end of 2015 to a schedule where it remains at 30% through the end of 2019 and then steps down for the next three years, and disappears entirely for residential projects. Since that extension the IRS has issued guidance around the use of co-located energy storage, as well as setting a standard under which PV projects can claim the ITC for the year that they begin construction.

This language around construction means that projects can start work in 2019, complete in 2023 and still claim the 30% ITC, and this may be why we at pv magazine USA are seeing an unprecedented boom in project pipelines across the United States.

Of course, if the ITC were to become permanent some of those projects would be pushed out to later years. But as we saw in 2016, despite an extension of the ITC many projects were still completed before the deadline, leading to the largest volume of PV installed in the United States in any one year to date.

This means that if the ITC were extended by the end of 2020, we could see the same thing all over again – a boom in projects created by the expected sunset, and then after a slight lull a continuation of growth.

Or it is possible that a combination of raw economics, increased investor and utility interest, and accelerating renewable energy mandates will cause solar growth rates to continue every year, and that any changes in the ITC will only be a bump against a larger trend.

While the basis for expiration of the EV tax credit is the number of vehicles sold, not any year, both the battery storage and EV industries, which many see at an inflection point, could see similar effects if the ITC and EV tax credits are made permanent.

Will consensus be reached?

It is also unclear that any such infrastructure package will be taken up by Republicans, or that both parties will be able to come to a compromise on this issue. While the U.S. Congress passed an infrastructure bill in 2017, given the sharp and growing differences between the two parties, and divergent trade approaches such as the 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs, it is not clear that they will be able to come to a meaningful compromise during the next two years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News