NYISO Issues 2013 to 2017 Strategic Plan

Site C Dam Controversy highlights Peace River risks, BC Hydro claims, Indigenous rights under Treaty 8, environmental assessment findings, and potential impacts to agriculture and the Peace-Athabasca Delta across Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

Key Points

Debate over BC Hydro's Site C dam: clean energy vs Indigenous rights, Peace-Athabasca Delta impacts, and agriculture.

✅ Potential drying of Peace-Athabasca Delta and wildlife habitat

✅ Treaty 8 rights and First Nations legal challenges

✅ Loss of prime Peace Valley farmland; alternatives in renewables

One of the leading opponents of the Site C dam in northeastern B.C. is sharing her concerns with northerners this week.

Proponents of the Site C dam say it will be a cost-effective source of clean electricity, even as a major Alberta wind farm was scrapped elsewhere in Canada, and that it will be able to produce enough energy to power the equivalent of 450,000 homes per year in B.C. But a number of Indigenous groups and environmentalists are against the project.

Wendy Holm is an economist and agronomist who did an environmental assessment of the dam focusing on its potential impacts on agriculture.

On Tuesday she spoke at a town hall presentation in Fort Smith, N.W.T., organized by the Slave River Coalition. She is also speaking at an event in Yellowknife on Friday, as small modular reactors in Yukon receive study as a potential long-term option.

Worried about downstream impacts, Northern leaders urge action on Site C dam

"I learned that people outside of British Columbia are as concerned with this dam as we are," Holm said.

"There's just a lot of concern with what's happening on the Peace River and this dam and the implications for Alberta, where hydro's share has diminished in recent decades, and the Northwest Territories."

If completed, BC Hydro's Site C energy project will be the third dam on the Peace River in northeast B.C. and the largest public works project in B.C. history. The $10.7-billion project was approved by both the provincial and federal governments as B.C. moves to streamline clean energy permitting for future projects.

Amy Lusk, co-ordinator of the Slave River Coalition, said many issues were discussed at the town hall, but she also left with a sense of hope.

"I think sometimes in our little corner of the world, we are up against so much when it comes to industrial development and threats to our water," she said.

"To kind of take away that message of, this is not a done deal, and that we do have a few options in place to try and stop this and not to lose hope, I think was a very important message for the community."

Drying of the Peace-Athabasca Delta

Holm said her main concern for the Northwest Territories is how it could affect the Peace-Athabasca Delta. She said the two dams already on the river are responsible for two-thirds of the drying that's happening in the delta.

"These are very real issues and very present in the minds of northerners who want to stay connected to a traditional lifestyle, want to have access to those wild foods," she said.

Lusk said northerners are fed up with defending waters "time after time after time."

BC Hydro, however, said studies commissioned during the environmental assessment of Site C show the project will have no measurable effect on the delta, which is located 1,100 kilometres away.

Holm said the fight against the Site C dam is also important when it comes to First Nations treaty rights.

The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations applied for an injunction to halt construction on Site C, as well as a treaty infringement lawsuit against the B.C. government. They argue the dam would cause irreparable harm to their territories and way of life, which are rights protected under Treaty 8.

Agricultural land

While the project is located in B.C., Holm said its impacts on prime horticulture land would also affect northerners, something that's important given issues of food security and nutrition.

"This is some of the best agriculture land in all of Canada," she said of the Peace Valley.

According to BC Hydro, around 2.6 million hectares of land in the Peace agricultural region would remain available for agricultural production while 3,800 hectares would be unavailable. It has also proposed a number of mitigation efforts, including a $20-million agricultural compensation fund.

Holm said renewable energy, including tidal energy for remote communities, will be cheaper and less destructive than the dam, and there's a connection between the dams on the Peace River and water sharing with the U.S.

"When you run out of water there's nothing else you can use. You can't use orange juice to irrigate your fields or to run your industries or to power your homes," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Power Grid Climate Resilience demands storm hardening, underground power lines, microgrids, batteries, and renewable energy as regulators and utilities confront climate change, sea level rise, and extreme weather to reduce outages and protect vulnerable communities.

Key Points

It is the grid capacity to resist and recover from climate hazards using buried lines, microgrids, and batteries.

✅ Underground lines reduce wind outages and wildfire ignition risk.

✅ Microgrids with solar and batteries sustain critical services.

✅ Regulators balance cost, resilience, equity, and reliability.

Every time a storm lashes the Carolina coast, the power lines on Tonye Gray’s street go down, cutting her lights and air conditioning. After Hurricane Florence in 2018, Gray went three days with no way to refrigerate medicine for her multiple sclerosis or pump the floodwater out of her basement.

What you need to know about the U.N. climate summit — and why it matters
“Florence was hell,” said Gray, 61, a marketing account manager and Wilmington native who finds herself increasingly frustrated by the city’s vulnerability.

“We’ve had storms long enough in Wilmington and this particular area that all power lines should have been underground by now. We know we’re going to get hit.”

Across the nation, severe weather fueled by climate change is pushing aging electrical systems past their limits, often with deadly results. Last year, amid increasing nationwide blackouts, the average American home endured more than eight hours without power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration — more than double the outage time five years ago.

This year alone, a wave of abnormally severe winter storms caused a disastrous power failure in Texas, leaving millions of homes in the dark, sometimes for days, and at least 200 dead. Power outages caused by Hurricane Ida contributed to at least 14 deaths in Louisiana, as some of the poorest parts of the state suffered through weeks of 90-degree heat without air conditioning.

As storms grow fiercer and more frequent, environmental groups are pushing states to completely reimagine the electrical grid, incorporating more grid-scale batteries, renewable energy sources and localized systems known as “microgrids,” which they say could reduce the incidence of wide-scale outages. Utility companies have proposed their own storm-proofing measures, including burying power lines underground.

But state regulators largely have rejected these ideas, citing pressure to keep energy rates affordable. Of $15.7 billion in grid improvements under consideration last year, regulators approved only $3.4 billion, according to a national survey by the NC Clean Energy Technology Center — about one-fifth, highlighting persistent vulnerabilities in the grid nationwide.

After a weather disaster, “everybody’s standing around saying, ‘Why didn’t you spend more to keep the lights on?’ ” Ted Thomas, chairman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission, said in an interview with The Washington Post. “But when you try to spend more when the system is working, it’s a tough sell.”

A major impediment is the failure by state regulators and the utility industry to consider the consequences of a more volatile climate — and to come up with better tools to prepare for it. For example, a Berkeley Lab study last year of outages caused by major weather events in six states found that neither state officials nor utility executives attempted to calculate the social and economic costs of longer and more frequent outages, such as food spoilage, business closures, supply chain disruptions and medical problems.

“There is no question that climatic changes are happening that directly affect the operation of the power grid,” said Justin Gundlach, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, a think tank at New York University Law School. “What you still haven’t seen … is a [state] commission saying: 'Isn’t climate the through line in all of this? Let’s examine it in an open-ended way. Let’s figure out where the information takes us and make some decisions.’ ”

In interviews, several state commissioners acknowledged that failure.

“Our electric grid was not built to handle the storms that are coming this next century,” said Tremaine L. Phillips, a commissioner on the Michigan Public Service Commission, which in August held an emergency meeting to discuss the problem of power outages. “We need to come up with a broader set of metrics in order to better understand the success of future improvements.”

Five disasters in four years
The need is especially urgent in North Carolina, where experts warn Atlantic grids and coastlines need a rethink as the state has declared a federal disaster from a hurricane or tropical storm five times in the past four years. Among them was Hurricane Florence, which brought torrential rain, catastrophic flooding and the state’s worst outage in over a decade in September 2018.

More than 1 million residents were left disconnected from refrigerators, air conditioners, ventilators and other essential machines, some for up to two weeks. Elderly residents dependent on oxygen were evacuated from nursing homes. Relief teams flew medical supplies to hospitals cut off by flooded roads. Desperate people facing closed stores and rotting food looted a Wilmington Family Dollar.

“I have PTSD from Hurricane Florence, not because of the actual storm but the aftermath,” said Evelyn Bryant, a community organizer who took part in the Wilmington response.

The storm reignited debate over a $13 billion proposal by Duke Energy, one of the largest power companies in the nation, to reinforce the state’s power grid. A few months earlier, the state had rejected Duke’s request for full repayment of those costs, determining that protecting the grid against weather is a normal part of doing business and not eligible for the type of reimbursement the company had sought.

After Florence, Duke offered a smaller, $2.5 billion plan, along with the argument that severe weather events are one of seven “megatrends” (including cyberthreats and population growth) that require greater investment, according to a PowerPoint presentation included in testimony to the state. The company owns the two largest utilities in North Carolina, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress.

Vote Solar, a nonprofit climate advocacy group, objected to Duke’s plan, saying the utility had failed to study the risks of climate impacts. Duke’s flood maps, for example, had not been updated to reflect the latest projections for sea level rise, they said. In testimony, Vote Solar claimed Duke was using environmental trends to justify investments “it had already decided to pursue.”

The United States is one of the few countries where regulated utilities are usually guaranteed a rate of return on capital investments, even as studies show the U.S. experiences more blackouts than much of the developed world. That business model incentivizes spending regardless of how well it solves problems for customers and inspires skepticism. Ric O’Connell, executive director of GridLab, a nonprofit group that assists state and regional policymakers on electrical grid issues, said utilities in many states “are waving their hands and saying hurricanes” to justify spending that would do little to improve climate resilience.

In North Carolina, hurricanes convinced Republicans that climate change is real

Duke Energy spokesman Jeff Brooks acknowledged that the company had not conducted a climate risk study but pointed out that this type of analysis is still relatively new for the industry. He said Duke’s grid improvement plan “inherently was designed to think about future needs,” including reinforced substations with walls that rise several feet above the previous high watermark for flooding, and partly relied on federal flood maps to determine which stations are at most risk.

Brooks said Duke is not using weather events to justify routine projects, noting that the company had spent more than a year meeting with community stakeholders and using their feedback to make significant changes to its grid improvement plan.

This year, the North Carolina Utilities Commission finally approved a set of grid improvements that will cost customers $1.2 billion. But the commission reserved the right to deny Duke reimbursement of those costs if it cannot prove they are prudent and reasonable. The commission’s general counsel, Sam Watson, declined to discuss the decision, saying the commission can comment on specific cases only in public orders.

The utility is now burying power lines in “several neighborhoods across the state” that are most vulnerable to wide-scale outages, Brooks said. It is also fitting aboveground power lines with “self-healing” technology, a network of sensors that diverts electricity away from equipment failures to minimize the number of customers affected by an outage.

As part of a settlement with Vote Solar, Duke Energy last year agreed to work with state officials and local leaders to further evaluate the potential impacts of climate change, a process that Brooks said is expected to take two to three years.

High costs create hurdles
The debate in North Carolina is being echoed in states across the nation, where burying power lines has emerged as one of the most common proposals for insulating the grid from high winds, fires and flooding. But opponents have balked at the cost, which can run in the millions of dollars per mile.

In California, for example, Pacific Gas & Electric wants to bury 10,000 miles of power lines, both to make the grid more resilient and to reduce the risk of sparking wildfires. Its power equipment has contributed to multiple deadly wildfires in the past decade, including the 2018 Camp Fire that killed at least 85 people.

PG&E’s proposal has drawn scorn from critics, including San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, who say it would be too slow and expensive. But Patricia Poppe, the company’s CEO, told reporters that doing nothing would cost California even more in lost lives and property while struggling to keep the lights on during wildfires. The plan has yet to be submitted to the state, but Terrie Prosper, a spokeswoman for the California Public Utilities Commission, said the commission has supported underground lines as a wildfire mitigation strategy.

Another oft-floated solution is microgrids, small electrical systems that provide power to a single neighborhood, university or medical center. Most of the time, they are connected to a larger utility system. But in the event of an outage, microgrids can operate on their own, with the aid of solar energy stored in batteries.

In Florida, regulators recently approved a four-year microgrid pilot project, but the technology remains expensive and unproven. In Maryland, regulators in 2016 rejected a plan to spend about $16 million for two microgrids in Baltimore, in part because the local utility made no attempt to quantify “the tangible benefits to its customer base.”

Amid shut-off woes, a beacon of energy

In Texas, where officials have largely abandoned state regulation in favor of the free market, the results have been no more encouraging. Without requirements, as exist elsewhere, for building extra capacity for times of high demand or stress, the state was ill-equipped to handle an abnormal deep freeze in February that knocked out power to 4 million customers for days.

Since then, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Starwood Energy Group each proposed spending $8 billion to build new power plants to provide backup capacity, with guaranteed returns on the investment of 9 percent, but the Texas legislature has not acted on either plan.

New York is one of the few states where regulators have assessed the risks of climate change and pushed utilities to invest in solutions. After 800,000 New Yorkers lost power for 10 days in 2012 in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, state regulators ordered utility giant Con Edison to evaluate the state’s vulnerability to weather events.

The resulting report, which estimated climate risks could cost the company as much as $5.2 billion by 2050, gave ConEd data to inform its investments in storm hardening measures, including new storm walls and submersible equipment in areas at risk of flooding.

Meanwhile, the New York Public Service Commission has aggressively enforced requirements that utility companies keep the lights on during big storms, fining utility providers nearly $190 million for violations including inadequate staffing during Tropical Storm Isaias in 2020.

“At the end of the day, we do not want New Yorkers to be at the mercy of outdated infrastructure,” said Rory M. Christian, who last month was appointed chair of the New York commission.

The price of inaction
In North Carolina, as Duke Energy slowly works to harden the grid, some are pursuing other means of fostering climate-resilient communities.

Beth Schrader, the recovery and resilience director for New Hanover County, which includes Wilmington, said some of the people who went the longest without power after Florence had no vehicles, no access to nearby grocery stores and no means of getting to relief centers set up around the city.

For example, Quanesha Mullins, a 37-year-old mother of three, went eight days without power in her housing project on Wilmington’s east side. Her family got by on food from the Red Cross and walked a mile to charge their phones at McDonald’s. With no air conditioning, they slept with the windows open in a neighborhood with a history of violent crime.

Schrader is working with researchers at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte to estimate the cost of helping people like Mullins. The researchers estimate that it would have cost about $572,000 to provide shelter, meals and emergency food stamp benefits to 100 families for two weeks, said Robert Cox, an engineering professor who researches power systems at UNC-Charlotte.

Such calculations could help spur local governments to do more to help vulnerable communities, for example by providing “resilience outposts” with backup power generators, heating or cooling rooms, Internet access and other resources, Schrader said. But they also are intended to show the costs of failing to shore up the grid.

“The regulators need to be moved along,” Cox said.

In the meantime, Tonye Gray finds herself worrying about what happens when the next storm hits. While Duke Energy says it is burying power lines in the most outage-prone areas, she has yet to see its yellow-vested crews turn up in her neighborhood.

“We feel,” she said, “that we’re at the end of the line.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies 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

Edmonton Electricity Rate Increase signals Alberta RRO changes as the UCP ends the NDP price cap; kilowatt-hour rises to 7.5 cents, raising energy bills for typical households by 3.9 percent in December.

Key Points

The end of Alberta’s RRO cap lifts kWh to 7.5 cents, raising an average Edmonton home’s bill about 3.9% in December.

✅ RRO price cap scrapped; kWh set at 7.5 cents in December.

✅ Average 600 kWh home pays about $7.37 more vs November.

✅ UCP ends NDP-era cap after stakeholder and consumer feedback.

Electricity will be more expensive for some Edmontonians in December after the UCP government scrapped a program that capped rates amid prices spiking in Alberta this year.

Effective Nov. 30, the province got rid of the consumer price cap program for Regulated Rate Option customers.

In 2017, the NDP government capped the kilowatt per hour price at 6.8 cents under a consumer price cap policy, meaning Edmontonians would pay the market rate and not more than the capped price.

In December, kWh will cost 7.5 cents amid expert warnings to lock in rates across Alberta. Typical Edmonton homes use an average of 600 kWh, increasing bills by $7.37, or 3.9 per cent, compared to November.

In Calgary, electricity bills have been rising as well, reflecting similar market pressures.

The NDP created the capacity system to bring price stability to Albertans, though a Calgary retailer urged scrapping the market overhaul at the time.

Energy Minister Sonya Savage said the UCP decided to scrap it after "overwhelming" feedback from consumers and industry stakeholders, as the province introduced new electricity rules earlier this year. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Energy Storage Procurement accelerates grid flexibility as IESO seeks lithium batteries, pumped storage, compressed air, and flywheels to balance renewables, support EV charging, and complement gas peakers during Pickering refits and rising electricity demand.

Key Points

Ontario's plan to procure 2,500 MW of storage to firm renewables, aid EV charging, and add flexible grid capacity.

✅ 2,500 MW storage plus 1,500 MW gas for 2025-2027 reliability

✅ Mix: lithium batteries, pumped storage, compressed air, flywheels

✅ Enables VPPs via EVs, demand response, and hybrid solar-storage

Ontario is staring down an electricity supply crunch and amid a rush to secure more power, it is plunging into the world of energy storage — a relatively unknown solution for the grid that experts say could also change energy use at home.

Beyond the sprawling nuclear plants and waterfalls that generate most of the province’s electricity sit the batteries, the underground caverns storing compressed air to generate electricity, and the spinning flywheels waiting to store energy at times of low demand and inject it back into the system when needed.

The province’s energy needs are quickly rising, with the proliferation of electric vehicles and growing Canada-U.S. collaboration on EV adoption, and increasing manufacturing demand for electricity on the horizon just as a large nuclear plant that supplies 14 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is set to be retired and other units are being refurbished.

The government is seeking to extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, planning an import agreement for power with Quebec, rolling out conservation programs, and — controversially — relying on more natural gas to fill the looming gap between demand and supply, amid Northern Ontario sustainability debates.

Officials with the Independent Electricity System Operator say a key advantage of natural gas generation is that it can quickly ramp up and down to meet changes in demand. Energy storage can provide that same flexibility, those in the industry say.

Energy Minister Todd Smith has directed the IESO to secure 1,500 megawatts of new natural gas capacity between 2025 and 2027, along with 2,500 megawatts of clean technology such as energy storage that can be deployed quickly, which together would be enough to power the city of Toronto.

It’s a far cry from the 54 megawatts of energy storage in use in Ontario’s grid right now.

Smith said in an interview that it’s the largest active procurement for energy storage in North America.

“The one thing that we want to ensure that we do is continue to add clean generation as much as possible, and affordable and clean generation that’s reliable,” he said.

Rupp Carriveau, director of the Environmental Energy Institute at the University of Windsor, said the timing is good.

“The space is there, the technology is there, and the willingness among private industry to respond is all there,” he said. “I know of a lot of companies that have been rubbing their hands together, looking at this potential to construct storage capacity.”

Justin Rangooni, the executive director of Energy Storage Canada, said because of the relatively tight timelines, the 2,500 megawatts is likely to be mostly lithium batteries. But there are many other ways to store energy, other than a simple battery.

“As we get to future procurements and as years pass, you’ll start to see possibly pump storage, compressed air, thermal storage, different battery chemistry,” he said.

Pump storage involves using electricity during off-peak periods to pump water into a reservoir and slowly releasing it to run a turbine and generate electricity when it’s needed. Compressed air works similarly, and old salt caverns in Goderich, Ont., are being used to store the compressed air.

In thermal storage, electricity is used to heat water when demand is low and when it’s needed, water stored in tanks can be used as heat or hot water.

Flywheels are large spinning tops that can store kinetic energy, which can be used to power a turbine and produce electricity. A flywheel facility in Minto, Ont., also installed solar panels on its roof and became the first solar storage hybrid facility in Ontario, said a top IESO official.

Katherine Sparkes, the IESO’s director of innovation, research and development, said it’s exciting, from a grid perspective.

“As we kind of look to the future and we think about gas phase out and electrification, one of the big challenges that all power systems across North America and around the world are looking at is: how do you accommodate increasing amounts of variable, renewable resources and just make better use of your grid assets,” she said.

“Hybrids, storage generation pairings, gives you that opportunity to deal with the variability of renewables, so to store electricity when the sun isn’t shining, or the wind isn’t blowing, and use it when you need it to.”

The small amount of storage already in the system provides more fine tuning of the electricity system, whereas 2,500 megawatts will be a more “foundational” part of the toolkit, said Sparkes.

But what’s currently on the grid is far from the only storage in the province. Many commercial and industrial consumers, such as large manufacturing facilities or downtown office buildings, are using storage to manage their electricity usage, relying on battery energy when prices are high.

The IESO sees that as an opportunity and has changed market rules to allow those customers to sell electricity back to the grid when needed.

As well, the IESO has its eye on the thousands of mobile batteries in electric vehicles, a trend seen in California, that shuttle people around the province every day but sit unused for much of the time.

“If we can enable those batteries to work together in aggregation, or work with other types of technologies like solar or smart building systems in a configuration, like a group of technologies, that becomes a virtual power plant,” Sparkes said.

Peak Power, a company that seeks to “make power plants obsolete,” is running a pilot project with electric vehicles in three downtown Toronto office buildings in which the car batteries can provide electricity to reduce the facility’s overall demand during peak periods using vehicle-to-building charging with bidirectional chargers.

In that model, one vehicle can earn $8,000 per year, said cofounder and chief operating officer Matthew Sachs.

“Battery energy storage will change the energy industry in the same way and for the same reasons that refrigeration changed the milk industry,” he said.

“As you had refrigeration, you could store your commodity and that changed the distribution channels of it. So I believe that energy storage is going to radically change the distribution channels of energy.”

If every home has a solar panel, an electric vehicle and a residential battery, it becomes a generating station, a decentralization that’s not only more environmentally friendly, but also relies less on “monopolized utilities,” Sachs said.

In the next decade, energy demand from electric vehicles is projected to skyrocket, making vehicle-to-grid integration increasingly relevant, and Sachs said the grid can’t grow enough to accommodate a peak demand of hundreds of thousands of vehicles being plugged in to charge at the end of the workday commute. Authorities need to be looking at more incentives such as time-of-use pricing and price signals to ensure the demand is evened out, he said.

“It’s a big risk as much as it’s a big opportunity,” he said. “If we do it wrong, it will cost us billions to fix. If we do it right, it can save us billions.”

Jack Gibbons, the chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, said the provincial and federal governments need to fund and install bidirectional chargers in order to fully take advantage of electric vehicles.

“This is a huge missed opportunity,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Nuclear Power Expansion highlights SMRs, clean energy, net-zero targets, and robust regulation to deliver safe, reliable baseload electricity, spur investment, and economically decarbonize remote communities, mines, and grids across provinces securely.

Key Points

Canada Nuclear Power Expansion grows SMRs and reactors to meet climate targets with safe, reliable baseload power.

✅ Deploys SMRs for remote communities, mines, and industrial sites

✅ Streamlines regulation to ensure safety, trust, and timely approvals

✅ Provides clean, reliable baseload to hit net-zero electricity goals

Canada must expand its nuclear power capacity if it is to reach its climate targets, according to Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Seamus Oregan.

Speaking to the Canadian Nuclear Association’s annual conference, Seamus O’Regan said the industry has to grow.

“As the world tackles a changing climate, nuclear power is poised to provide the next wave of clean, affordable, safe and reliable power,” he told a packed room.

The Ottawa conference was the largest the industry has run with dozens of companies and more than 900 people in attendance. Provincial cabinet ministers from Saskatchewan and Ontario were also there. Those two provinces, along with New Brunswick, signed a memorandum in December as part of a premiers' nuclear initiative to work together on small modular reactor technology.

People need to know that it’s safe

Small modular reactors are units that produce less power than large generating stations, but can be constructed easier and are expected to be safer to operate. Canadian firms have about a dozen of the proposed reactors working their way through the regulatory process, with New Brunswick's SMR plans drawing scrutiny.

The smaller reactors could be used in groups to replace large units, but the industry also hopes to use them in rural or isolated communities, mines or even oilsands projects, potentially replacing the diesel power generators some remote communities use.

The Canadian government issued a road map to support the industry in 2018 and O’Regan committed Thursday to putting some teeth on that proposal later this year, as provinces like Ontario explore new large-scale nuclear plants to meet demand, with specific steps the government will take.

“We have been working so hard to support this industry. We are placing nuclear energy front and centre, something that has never been done before.”

O’Regan said the government’s role is a clear, streamlined regulatory system that will promote the industry, but also help the Canadian public to trust the reactors will be safe.

“People need to know that it’s safe. They need to know that it’s regulated. They need to know that it’s safe for them,” he said.

The Liberals promised during the campaign that they would gradually reduce Canada’s carbon emissions even after hitting the targets in the Paris Agreement by 2030. By 2050, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he expects Canada to be carbon neutral, mindful of lessons from Europe's power crisis on reliability.

The government hasn’t outlined how it will achieve that goal. O’Regan said more detail is coming, but it’s clear that nuclear is going to have to play a major part, echoing the UK’s green industrial revolution approach to reactor deployment.

“I have not seen a credible plan for net zero without nuclear as part of the mix. I don’t think we are going to be relying on any one technology. I think it’s going to be a whole host of things.”

O’Regan said large investors are looking for countries that are on the path to net zero.

“Everybody has their shirt sleeves rolled up and we know we need to work on this, not only do we have to work on this for the urgency of the planet, but we have to work on it for Canadian jobs.”

He added, “We must focus on those areas where Canada can and should lead, like nuclear.”

Canadians are ready to take a fresh look at nuclear

John Gorman, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said he was thrilled with O’Regan’s comments.

“I took the minister’s remarks this morning as being perhaps the strongest language of support for the nuclear industry in a number of years.”

Gorman said the industry is in strong shape and is working with utility companies such as Ontario Power Generation and regulators to move projects forward.

“It’s this amazing collaboration and coordination that is enabling us to beat others to the roll out of these small modular reactors,” he said.

He said provinces that might not have looked at nuclear before now have an incentive to do it, because of climate change. A former solar industry executive, Gorman said solar and wind power are important, as Ontario plans to seek new wind and solar power to ease supply pressures, but they won’t be able to keep up with rising power demands.

“Globally we are seeing increased recognition that climate change is real and that it’s a crisis, we are also seeing recognition that we are not making as much progress on decarbonizing our electricity system as we thought,” he said. “Canadians are ready to take a fresh look at nuclear and see the real facts.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News