TECO to work on transmission lines

Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.

Key Points

A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.

✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear

✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits

✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations

A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.

Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.

Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.

Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.

The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.

Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.

The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.

MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.

Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.

The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Hydro Allegations Investigation reveals RCMP and OPP probes into 1960s abuses in northern Manitoba, affecting Fox Lake Cree Nation, citing racism, discrimination, sexual assault, and oversight by the IIU and Clean Environment Commission.

Key Points

A coordinated probe into historic abuses tied to Manitoba Hydro projects, led by OPP and IIU after RCMP referral.

✅ OPP to investigate historical cases involving Hydro staff and contractors.

✅ IIU to examine any allegations implicating Manitoba RCMP officers.

✅ Findings follow CEC report on racism and abuse near Fox Lake.

Manitoba RCMP have called in outside investigators to probe alleged assaults linked to hydro projects in the province’s north during the 1960s.

RCMP say any historical criminal investigations involving Manitoba Hydro employees or contractors will be handled by the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba, the province’s police watchdog, will investigate any allegations involving RCMP officers.

A report released last month by an arm’s-length review agency outlined racism, discrimination and sexual abuse at the Crown-owned utility’s work sites dating back decades, while projects like Site C COVID-19 updates provide contemporary examples of reporting.

Much of the development at that time was centered around the community of Gillam and the nearby Fox Lake Cree Nation.

The report said the presence of a largely male construction workforce led to the sexual abuse of Indigenous women, some of whom said their complaints were ignored by the RCMP, and in a different context, Hydro One worker injury highlights safety risks in the sector.

Premier Brian Pallister says his government is taking the right approach to addressing alleged sexual assaults and racism by Manitoba Hydro workers against members of a remote northern First Nation, while pandemic cost-cutting at Manitoba Hydro has shaped recent operations.

Pallister made his first public comments about the allegations after a private meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Tuesday evening, as COVID-19 reshaped Saskatchewan and other Prairie priorities were in focus.

The allegations, made by members of Fox Lake Cree Nation, were revealed in a report produced by the Clean Environment Commission. The report was released by the provincial government in August, although it was completed in May.

Allegations against Manitoba Hydro workers: What you need to know

"My reaction would be that's deplorable behaviour, and I have to admit, my puzzlement is why this wasn't investigated sooner or didn't come to light sooner," Pallister said, adding that he believes his government has taken the right approach by referring the information to the RCMP.

Some members of Fox Lake Cree Nation say the government didn't give them any advance notice of the release of the report, so the community was traumatized when it hit the news.

Pallister said his government didn't want to delay the release of the report.

'Pure trauma': Fox Lake members stricken after hasty release of troubling report

"I think the right thing to do is release the report. A lot of this information was in the public domain over the last number of weeks and months anyway. It wasn't the case of it being new in that respect," he said.

However, he accepted criticism of the timeline of the report's release.

"I would rather accept those criticisms, than accept the argument that we were in any way covering up information that is important to be released," he said.

Fox Lake Chief Walter Spence has said he expects Pallister to visit the community.

The premier said Tuesday he was not sure of the effectiveness of such a trip.

"I think most of the communities would prefer that there be electricity jobs for young Canadians created in their communities, that there be better water, many other tangible things rather than symbolism," he said.

"That's what I'm hearing and I've been in dozens of First Nations communities in the last two years."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety 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

Maritime Electric Hurricane Irma Response details utility crews aiding Turks and Caicos with power restoration, storm recovery, debris removal, and essential services, coordinated with Fortis Inc., despite limited equipment, heat, and over 1,000 downed poles.

Key Points

A utility mission restoring power and essential services in Turks and Caicos after Irma, led by Maritime Electric.

✅ Over 1,000 poles down; crews climbing without bucket trucks

✅ Restoring hospitals, water, and communications first

✅ Fortis Inc. coordination; 2-3 week deployment with follow-on crews

Maritime Electric has sent a crew to help in the clean up and power restoration of Turks and Caicos after the Caribbean island was hit by Hurricane Irma, a storm that also saw FPL's massive response across Florida.

They arrived earlier this week and are working on removing debris and equipment so when supplies arrive, power can be brought back online, and similar mutual aid deployments, including Canadian crews to Florida, have been underway as well.

Fortis Inc., the parent company for Maritime Electric operates a utility in Turks and Caicos.

Kim Griffin, spokesperson for Maritime Electric, said there are over 1000 poles that were brought down by the storm, mirroring Florida restoration timelines reported elsewhere.

"It's really an intense storm recovery," she said. 'Good spirits'

The crew is working with less heavy equipment than they are used to, climbing poles instead of using bucket trucks, in hot and humid weather.

Griffin said their focus is getting essential services restored as quckly as possible, similar to progress in Puerto Rico's restoration efforts following recent hurricanes.

The crew will be there for two or three weeks and Griffin said Maritime Electric may send another group, as seen with Ontario's deployment to Florida, to continue the job.

She said the team has been well received and is in "good spirits."

"The people around them have been very positive that they're there," she said.

"They've said it's just been overwhelming how kind and generous the people have been to them."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Western Washington Bomb Cyclone unleashed gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, causing massive power outages from Seattle to Tacoma; storm surge, downed trees, and blocked roads hindered emergency response and infrastructure repairs.

Key Points

A rapidly deepening storm with severe winds, rain, flooding, and major power outages across Western Washington.

✅ Rapid barometric pressure drop intensified the system

✅ Gale-force winds downed trees and power lines

✅ Coastal flooding and storm surge disrupted transport

A powerful "bomb cyclone" recently hit Western Washington, causing widespread destruction across the region. The intense storm left more than half a million residents without power, similar to B.C. bomb cyclone outages seen to the north, with outages affecting communities from Seattle to Olympia. This weather phenomenon, marked by a rapid drop in atmospheric pressure, unleashed severe wind gusts, heavy rain, and flooding, causing significant disruption to daily life.

The bomb cyclone, which is a rapidly intensifying storm, typically features a sharp drop in barometric pressure over a short period of time. This creates extreme weather conditions, including gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, as seen during California storm impacts earlier in the season. In Western Washington, the storm struck just as the region was beginning to prepare for the winter season, catching many off guard with its strength and unpredictability.

The storm's impact was immediately felt as high winds downed trees, power lines, and other infrastructure. By the time the worst of the storm had passed, utility companies had reported widespread power outages, with more than 500,000 customers losing electricity. The outages were particularly severe in areas like Seattle, Tacoma, and the surrounding communities. Crews worked tirelessly in difficult conditions to restore power, but many residents faced extended outages, underscoring US grid climate vulnerabilities that complicate recovery efforts, with some lasting for days due to the scope of the damage.

The power outages were accompanied by heavy rainfall, leading to localized flooding. Roads were inundated, making it difficult for first responders and repair crews to reach affected areas. Emergency services were stretched thin as they dealt with downed trees, blocked roads, and flooded neighborhoods. In some areas, floodwaters reached homes, forcing people to evacuate. In addition, several schools were closed, and public transportation services were temporarily halted, leaving commuters stranded and businesses unable to operate.

As the storm moved inland, its effects continued to be felt. Western Washington’s coastal regions were hammered by high waves and storm surges, further exacerbating the damage. The combination of wind and rain also led to hazardous driving conditions, prompting authorities to advise people to stay off the roads unless absolutely necessary.

While power companies worked around the clock to restore electricity, informed by grid resilience strategies that could help utilities prepare for future events, challenges persisted. Fallen trees and debris blocked access to repair sites, and the sheer number of outages made it difficult for crews to restore power quickly. Some customers were left in the dark for days, forced to rely on generators, candles, and other makeshift solutions. The storm's intensity left a trail of destruction, requiring significant resources to address the damages and rebuild critical infrastructure.

In addition to the immediate impacts on power and transportation, the bomb cyclone raised important concerns about climate change and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Experts note that storms like these are becoming more common, with rapid intensification leading to more severe consequences and compounding pressures such as extreme-heat electricity costs for households. As the planet warms, scientists predict that such weather systems will continue to grow in strength, posing greater challenges to cities and regions that are not always prepared for such extreme events.

In the aftermath of the storm, local governments and utility companies faced the daunting task of not only restoring services but also assessing the broader impact of the storm on communities. Many areas, especially those hit hardest by flooding and power outages, will require substantial recovery efforts. The devastation of the bomb cyclone highlighted the vulnerability of infrastructure in the face of rapidly changing weather patterns and water availability, as seen in BC Hydro drought adaptations nearby, and reinforced the need for greater resilience in the face of future storms.

The storm's impact on the Pacific Northwest is a reminder of the power of nature and the importance of preparedness. As Western Washington recovers, there is a renewed focus on strengthening infrastructure, including expanded renewable electricity to diversify supply, improving emergency response systems, and ensuring that communities are better equipped to handle the challenges posed by increasingly severe weather events. For now, residents remain hopeful that the worst is behind them and are working together to rebuild and prepare for whatever future storms may bring.

The bomb cyclone has left an indelible mark on Western Washington, but it also serves as a call to action for better preparedness, more robust infrastructure, and a greater focus on combating climate change to mitigate the impact of such extreme weather in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News