Court considers objections to power plant

Martha's Vineyard 100% Renewable Energy advances electrification across EVs, heat pumps, distributed solar, offshore wind, microgrids, and battery storage, cutting emissions, boosting efficiency, and strengthening grid resilience for storms and sea-level rise.

Key Points

It is an islandwide plan to electrify transport and buildings using wind, solar, storage, and a modern resilient grid.

✅ Electrify transport: EV adoption and SSA hybrid-electric ferries.

✅ Deploy heat pumps for efficient heating and cooling in buildings.

✅ Modernize the grid: distributed solar, batteries, microgrids, VPP.

Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear that climate change is accelerating. Here in coastal New England, annual temperatures and precipitation have risen more quickly than expected, tidal flooding is now commonplace, and storms have increased in frequency and intensity. The window for avoiding the worst consequences of a climate-changed planet is closing.

At their recent special town meeting, Oak Bluffs citizens voted to approve the 100 per cent renewable Martha’s Vineyard warrant article; now, all six towns have adopted the same goals for fossil fuel reduction and green electricity over the next two decades. Establishing these targets for the adoption of renewable energy, though, is only an initial step. Town and regional master plans for energy transformation are being developed, but this is a whole-community effort as well. Now is the time for action.

There is much to do to combat climate change, but our most important task is to transition our energy system from one heavily dependent on fossil fuels to one that is based on clean electricity. The good news is that this can be accomplished with currently available technology, and can be done in an economically efficient manner.

Electrification not only significantly lowers greenhouse gas emissions, but also is a powerful energy efficiency measure. So even though our detailed Island energy model indicates that eliminating all (or almost all) fossil fuel use will mean our electricity use will more than double, posing challenges for state power grids in some regions, our overall annual energy consumption will be significantly lower.

So what do we specifically need to do?

The primary targets for electrification are transportation (roughly 60 peer cent of current fossil fuel use on Martha’s Vineyard) and building heating and cooling (40 per cent).

Over the past two years, the increase in the number of electric vehicle models available across a wide range of price points has been remarkable — sedans, SUVs, crossovers, pickup trucks, even transit vans. When rebates and tax credits are considered, they are affordable. Range anxiety is being addressed both by increases in vehicle performance and the growing availability of charging locations (other than at home, which will be the predominant place for Islanders to refuel) and, over time, enable vehicle-to-grid support for our local system. An EV purchase should be something everyone should seriously consider when replacing a current fossil vehicle.

The elephant in the transportation sector room is the Steamship Authority. The SSA today uses roughly 10 per cent of the fossil fuel attributable to Martha’s Vineyard, largely but not totally in the ferries. The technology needed for fully electric short-haul vessels has been under development in Scandinavia for a number of years and fully electric ferries are in operation there. A conservative approach for the SSA would be to design new boats to be hybrid diesel-electric, retrofittable to plug-in hybrids to allow for shoreside charging infrastructure to be planned and deployed. Plug-in hybrid propulsion could result in a significant reduction in emissions — perhaps as much as 95 per cent, per the long-range plan for the Washington State ferries. While the SSA has contracted for an alternative fuel study for its next boat, given the long life of the vessels, an electrification master plan is needed soon.

For building heating and cooling, the answer for electrification is heat pumps, both for new construction and retrofits. These devices move heat from outside to inside (in the winter) or inside to outside (summer), and are increasingly integrated into connected home energy systems for smarter control. They are also remarkably efficient (at least three times more efficient than burning oil or propane), and today’s technology allows their operation even in sub-zero outside temperatures. Energy costs for electric heating via heat pumps on the Vineyard are significantly below either oil or propane, and up-front costs are comparable for new construction. For new construction and when replacing an existing system, heat pumps are the smart choice, and air conditioning for the increasingly hot summers comes with the package.

A frequent objection to electrification is that fossil-fueled generation emits greenhouse gases — thus a so-called green grid is required in order to meet our targets. The renewable energy fraction of our grid-supplied electricity is today about 30 per cent; by 2030, under current legislation that fraction will reach 54 per cent, and by 2040, 77 per cent. Proposed legislation will bring us even closer to our 2040 goals. The Vineyard Wind project will strongly contribute to the greening of our electricity supply, and our local solar generation (almost 10 per cent of our overall electricity use at this point) is non-negligible.

A final important facet of our energy system transformation is resilience. We are dependent today on our electricity supply, and this dependence will grow. As we navigate the challenges of climate change, with increasingly more frequent and more serious storms, 2021 electricity lessons underscore that resilience of electricity supply is of paramount importance. In many ways, today’s electricity distribution system is basically the same approach developed by Edison in the late 19th century. In partnership with our electric utility, we need to modernize the grid to achieve our resiliency goals.

While the full scope of this modernization effort is still being developed, the outline is clear. First, we need to increase the amount of energy generated on-Island — to perhaps 25 per cent of our total electricity use. This will be via distributed energy resources (in the form of distributed solar and battery installations as well as community solar projects) and the application of advanced grid control systems. For emergency critical needs, the concept of local microgrids that are detachable from the main grid when that grid suffers an outage are an approach that is technically sound and being deployed elsewhere. Grid coordination of distributed resources by the utility allows for handling of peak power demand; in the early 2030s this could result in what is known as a virtual power plant on the Island.

The adoption of the 100 renewable Martha’s Vineyard warrant articles is an important milestone for our community. While the global and national efforts in the climate crisis may sometimes seem fraught, we can take some considerable pride in what we have accomplished so far and will accomplish in coming years. As with many change efforts, the old catch-phrase applies: think globally, act locally.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.

Key Points

Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.

✅ Investor report projects 3x-7x bills and $50B market transition costs

✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes

✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades

Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?

I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.

The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.

We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.

I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.

And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.

How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.

Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.

Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.

For low-income families that would be a real hardship.

Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.

Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.

Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.

Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”

Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.

To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”

Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Solar Energy Contracts secure low-cost photovoltaic PPAs for government operations, delivering renewable electricity at 4.8 cents/kWh, beating natural gas LCOE, enhancing summer grid efficiency across Hays, Tilley, and Jenner with Canadian Solar.

Key Points

Low-cost PV power agreements meeting 55% of Alberta government electricity demand via new Canadian Solar facilities.

✅ Price: 4.8 cents/kWh CAD, under gas-fired generation LCOE.

✅ Sites: Hays, Tilley, Jenner; 50% equity with Conklin Métis Local #193.

✅ Supplies 55% of provincial government electricity demand.

Three new solar electricity facilities to be built in south eastern Alberta (Canada) amid Alberta's solar growth have been selected through a competitive process to supply the Government of Alberta with 55 per cent of their annual electricity needs. The facilities will be built near Hays, Tilley, and Jenner, by Canadian Solar with Conklin Métis Local #193 as 50-percent equity owners.

The Government of Alberta's operations have been powered 100 per cent with wind power since 2007. Upon the expiration of some of these contracts, they have been renewed to switch from wind to solar energy. The average contract pricing will be $0.048 per kilowatt hour (3.6 cents/kWh USD), which is less than the average historical wholesale power pool price paid to natural gas-fired electricity in the province in years 2008 - 2018.

"The conversation about solar energy has long been fixated on its price competitiveness with fossil fuels," said John Gorman, CanSIA President & CEO. "Today's announcement demonstrates that low cost solar energy has arrived as a mainstream option in Alberta, even as demand for solar lags in Canada according to federal assessments. The conversation should next focus on how to optimize an all-of-the-above strategy for developing the province's renewable and non-renewable resources."

"This price discovery is monumental for the solar industry in Canada" said Patrick Bateman, CanSIA Director of Policy & Market Development. "At less than five cents per kilowatt hour, this solar electricity has a cost that is less than that of natural gas. Achieving Alberta's legislated 30 per cent by 2030 renewable electricity target just became a whole lot cheaper!".

Quick Facts:

• The contract price of 4.8 cents/kWh CAD to be paid by Alberta Infrastructure for this solar electricity represents a lower Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) than the average annual wholesale price paid by the power pool to combined-cycle and single-cycle natural gas-fired electricity generation which was 7.1 cents/kWh and 11.2 cents/kWh respectively from 2008 - 2018.

• Alberta receives more hours of sunshine than Miami, Florida in the summer months. Alberta's electricity supply is most strained in summer, highlighting challenges for solar expansion when high temperatures increase the resistance of the distribution and transmission systems, and reduce the efficiency of cooling thermal power plants. For this reason, solar facilities sited near to electricity demand improves overall grid efficiency. Supply shortages are atypical in Alberta in winter when solar energy is least available. When they do occur, imports are increased and large loads are decreased.

• In 2018, Alberta's solar electricity generation exceeded 50 MW. While representing much less than 1% of the province's electricity supply today, the Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) forecasts that solar energy could supply as much as 3 per cent of the province's electricity by 2030, supporting renewable energy job growth across Alberta. A recent supply chain study of the solar electricity sector in Alberta by Solas Energy Consulting Inc. found a potential of $4.1 billion in market value and a labour force rising to 10,000 in 2030.

To learn more about solar energy and the best way for consumers to go solar, please visit the Canadian Solar Industries Association at www.CanSIA.ca.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increases hit Peco, PPL, and Pike County, driven by natural gas costs and wholesale power markets; default rate changes, price to compare shifts, and time-of-use plans affect residential bills.

Key Points

Electric default rates are rising across Pennsylvania as natural gas costs climb, affecting Peco, PPL, and Pike customers.

✅ PPL, Peco, and Pike raising default rates Dec. 1

✅ Natural gas costs driving wholesale power prices

✅ Consider standard offer, TOU rates, and efficiency

Energy costs for electric customers are going up by as much as 50% across Pennsylvania next week, the latest manifestation of US electricity price increases impacting gasoline, heating oil, propane, and natural gas.

Eight Pennsylvania electric utilities are set to increase their energy prices on Dec. 1, reflecting the higher cost to produce electricity. Peco Energy, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, will boost its energy charge by 6.4% on Dec. 1, from 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour to about 7 cents per kWh. Energy charges account for about half of a residential bill.

PPL Electric Utilities, the Allentown company that serves a large swath of Pennsylvania including parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties, will impose a 26% increase on residential energy costs on Dec. 1, from about 7.5 cents per kWh to 9.5 cents per kWh. That’s an increase of $40 a month for an electric heating customer who uses 2,000 kWh a month.

Pike County Light & Power, which serves about 4,800 customers in Northeast Pennsylvania, will increase energy charges by 50%, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

“All electric distribution companies face the same market forces as PPL Electric Utilities,” PPL said in a statement. Each Pennsylvania utility follows a different PUC-regulated plan for procuring energy from power generators, and those forces can include rising nuclear power costs in some regions, which explains why some customers are absorbing the hit sooner rather than later, it said.

There are ways customers can mitigate the impact. Utilities offer a host of programs and grants to support low-income customers, and some states are exploring income-based fixed charges to address affordability, and they encourage anyone struggling to pay their bills to call the utility for help. Customers can also control their costs by conserving energy. It may be time to put on a sweater and weatherize the house.

Peco recently introduced time-of-use rates — as seen when Ontario ended fixed pricing — that include steep discounts for customers who can shift electric usage to late night hours — that’s you, electric vehicle owners.

There’s also a clever opportunity available for many Pennsylvania customers called the “standard offer” that might save you some real money, but you need to act before the new charges take effect on Dec. 1 to lock in the best rates.

Why are the price hikes happening?
But first, how did we get here?

Energy charges are rising for a simple reason: Fuel prices for power generators are increasing, and that’s driven mostly by natural gas. It’s pushing up electricity prices in wholesale power markets and has lifted typical residential bills in recent years.

“It’s all market forces right now,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, PUC spokesperson. Energy charges are strictly a pass-through cost for utilities. Utilities aren’t allowed to mark them up.

The increase in utility energy charges does not affect customers who buy their energy from competitive power suppliers in deregulated electricity markets. About 27% of Pennsylvania’s 5.9 million electric customers who shop for electricity from third-party suppliers either pay fixed rates, whose price remains stable, or are on a variable-rate plan tied to market prices. The variable-rate electric bills have probably already increased to reflect the higher cost of generating power.

Most New Jersey electric customers are shielded for now from rising energy costs. New Jersey sets annual energy prices for customers who don’t shop for power. Those rates go into effect on June 1 and stay in place for 12 months. The current energy market fluctuations will be reflected in new rates that take effect next summer, said Lauren Ugorji, a spokesperson for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., New Jersey’s largest utility.

For each utility, its own plan
Pennsylvania has a different system for setting utility energy charges, which are also known as the “default rate,” because that’s the price a customer gets by default if they don’t shop for power. The default rate is also the same thing as the “price to compare,” a term the PUC has adopted so consumers can make an apples-to-apples comparison between a utility’s energy charge and the price offered by a competitive supplier.

Each of the state’s 11 PUC-regulated electric utilities prepares its own “default service plan,” that governs the method by which they procure power on wholesale markets. Electric distribution companies like Peco are required to buy the lowest priced power. They typically buy power in blind auctions conducted by independent agents, so that there’s no favoritism for affiliated power generators

Some utilities adjust charges quarterly, and others do it semi-annually. “This means that each [utility’s] resulting price to compare will vary as the market changes, some taking longer to reflect price changes, both up and down,” PPL said in a statement. PPL conducted its semi-annual auction in October, when energy prices were rising sharply.

Most utilities buy power from suppliers under contracts of varying durations, both long-term and short-term. The contracts are staggered so market price fluctuations are smoothed out. One utility, Pike County Power & Light, buys all its power on the spot market, which explains why its energy charge will surge by 50% on Dec. 1. Pike County’s energy charge will also be quicker to decline when wholesale prices subside, as they are expected to next year.

Peco adjusts its energy charge quarterly, but it conducts power auctions semi-annually. It buys about 40% of its power in one-year contracts, and 60% in two-year contracts, and does not buy any power on spot markets, said Richard G. Webster Jr., Peco’s vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

“At any given time, we’re replacing about a third of our supplied portfolio,” he said.

The utility’s energy charge affects only part of the monthly bill. For a Peco residential electric customer who uses 700 kWh per month, the Dec. 1 energy charge increase will boost monthly bills by $2.94 per month, or 2.9%. For an electric heating customer who uses about 2,000 kWh per month, the change will boost bills $8.40 a month, or about 3.5%, said Greg Smore, a Peco spokesperson.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

WA $600 Electricity Credit supports households with power bills as a budget stimulus, delivering an automatic rebate via Synergy and Horizon, funded by the Bell Group settlement to aid COVID-19 recovery and local spending.

Key Points

A one-off $600 power bill credit for all Synergy and Horizon residential accounts, funded by the Bell Group settlement.

✅ Automatic, not means-tested; applied to Synergy and Horizon accounts.

✅ Can offset upcoming bills or carry forward to future statements.

✅ Funded by Bell Group payout; aims to ease cost-of-living pressures.

Washington Premier Mark McGowan has announced more than a million households will receive a $600 electricity credit on their electricity account before their next bill.

The $650 million measure will form part of Thursday's pre-election state budget, similar to legislation to lower electricity rates in other jurisdictions, which has been delayed since May because of the pandemic and will help deflect criticism by the opposition that Labor hasn't done enough to stimulate WA's economy.

Mr McGowan made the announcement on Sunday while visiting a family in the electorate of Bicton.

"Here in WA, our state is in the best possible position as we continue our strong recovery from COVID-19, but times are still tough for many West Australians, and there is always more work to do," he said.

"[The credit] will mean WA families have a bit of extra money available in the lead up to Christmas.

"But I have a request, if this credit means you can spend some extra money, use it to support our local WA businesses."

The electricity bill credit will be automatically applied to every Synergy or Horizon residential account from Sunday, echoing moves such as reconnections for nonpayment by Hydro One in Canada.

It can be applied to future bills and will not be means tested.

"The $600 credit is fully funded through the recent Bell Group settlement, for the losses incurred in the Bell Group collapse in the early 1990s," Mr McGowan said.

"It made sense that these funds go straight back to Western Australians."

In September, the liquidator for the Bell Group and its finance arm distributed funds to its five major creditors, including $670 million to the WA government. The payment marked the close of the 30-year battle to recover taxpayer funds squandered during the WA Inc era of state politics.

The payout is the result of litigation stemming from the 1988 partnership between then Labor government and entrepreneur Alan Bond in acquiring major interests in Robert Holmes à Court’s failing Bell Group, following the 1987 stock market crash.

WA shadow minister for cost of living, Tony Krsticevic, said the $600 credit was returning money back into West Australian's pockets from "WA Labor's darkest days".

“This is taxpayers’ money out of a levy which was brought in to pay for Labor’s scandalous WA Inc losses of $450 million in the 1980s,” he said.

“This money should be returned to West Australians.

“WA families are in desperate need of it because they are struggling under cost of living increases of $850 every year since 2017 under WA Labor, amid concerns elsewhere that an electricity recovery rate could lead to higher hydro bills.

“But they need more than just a one-off payment. These $850 cost of living increases are an on-going burden.”

Prior to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, the opposition believed it was gaining traction by attacking the government's increases to fees and charges in its first three budgets, and by urging an electricity market overhaul to favor consumers.

Last year, Labor increased household fees and charges by $127.77, which came on top of increases over the prior two budgets, as other jurisdictions faced hydro rate increases of around 3 per cent.

According the state's annual report on its finances released in September, the $2.6 billion budget surplus forecast in the at the end of 2019 had been reduced by $920 million to $1.7 billion despite the impact of the coronavirus.

But total public sector net debt was at $35.4 billion, down from the $36.1 billion revision at the end of 2019 in the mid-year review.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Integrated Resource Plan evaluates NSPI supply options, UARB oversight, Muskrat Falls imports, coal retirements, wind and biomass expansion, transmission upgrades, storage, and least-cost pathways to decarbonize the grid for ratepayers.

Key Points

A 25-year roadmap assessing supply, imports, costs, and emissions to guide least-cost decarbonization for Nova Scotia.

✅ Compares wind, biomass, gas, imports, and storage costs

✅ Addresses coal retirements, emissions caps, and reliability

✅ Recommends transmission upgrades and Muskrat Falls utilization

Maintaining a viable electricity network requires good long-term planning and, as a recent grid operations report notes, ongoing operational improvements. The existing stock of generating assets can become obsolete through aging, changes in fuel prices or environmental considerations. Future changes in demand must be anticipated.

Periodically, an integrated resource plan is created to predict how all this will add up during the ensuing 25 years. That process is currently underway and is led by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and will be submitted for approval to the Utilities and Review Board (UARB).

Coal-fired plants are still the largest single source of electricity in Nova Scotia. They need to be replaced with more environmentally friendly sources when they reach the end of their useful lives. Other sources include wind, hydroelectricity from rivers, biomass, as seen in increased biomass use by NS Power, natural gas and imports from other jurisdictions.

Imports are used sparingly today but will be an important source when the electricity from Muskrat Falls comes on stream. That project has big capacity. It can produce all the power needed in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where Quebec's power ambitions influence regional flows, plus the amount already committed to Nova Scotia, and still have a lot left over.

Some sources of electricity are more valuable than others. The daily amount of power from wind and solar cannot be controlled. Fuel-based sources and hydro can.

Utilities make their profits by providing the capital necessary to build infrastructure. Most of the money is borrowed but a portion, typically 30 per cent, usually comes from NSPI or a sister company. On that they receive a rate of return of nine per cent. Nova Scotia can borrow money today at less than two per cent.

The largest single investment of that type is the $1.577-billion Maritime Link connecting power from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. It continues through to the New Brunswick border to facilitate exports to the United States. NSPI’s sister company, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML), is making nine per cent on $473 million of the cost.

There is little unexploited hydro capacity in Nova Scotia and there will not be any new coal-fired plants. Large-scale solar is not competitive in Nova Scotia’s climate. Nova Scotia’s needs would not accommodate the amount of nuclear capacity needed to be cost-effective, even as New Brunswick explores small reactors in its strategy.

So the candidates for future generating resources are wind, natural gas, biomass (though biomass criticism remains) and imports from other jurisdictions. Tidal is a promising opportunity but is still searching for a commercially viable technology. 

NSPI is commendably transparent about its process (irp.nspower.ca). At this stage there is little indication of the conclusions they are reaching but that will presumably appear in due course.

The mountains of detail might obscure the fact that NSPI is not an unbiased arbiter of choices for the future.

It is reported that they want to prematurely close the Trenton 5 coal plant in 2023-25. It is valued at $88.5 million. If it is closed early, ratepayers will still have to pay off the remaining value even though the plant will be idle. NSPI wants to plan a decommissioning of five of its other seven plants. There is a federal emissions constraint but retiring coal plants earlier than needed will cost ratepayers a lot.

Whenever those plants are closed, there will be a need for new sources of power. NSPI is proposing to plan for new investments in new transmission infrastructure to facilitate imports. Other possibilities would be additional wind farms, consistent with the shift to more wind and solar projects, thermal plants that burn natural gas or biomass, or storage for excess wind power that arrives before it can be used. The investment in storage could be anywhere from $20 million to $200 million.

These will add to the asset burden funded by ratepayers, even as industrial customers seek discounts while still paying for shuttered coal infrastructure.

External sources of new power will not provide NSPI the same opportunity: wind power by independent producers might be less expensive because they are willing to settle for less than nine per cent or because they are more efficient. Buying more power from Muskrat Falls will use transmission infrastructure we are already paying for. If a successful tidal technology is found, it will not be owned by NSPI or a sister company, which are no longer trying to perfect the technology.

This is not to suggest that NSPI would misrepresent the alternatives. But they can tilt the discussion in their favour. How tough will they be negotiating for additional Muskrat Falls power when it hurts their profits? Arguing for premature coal retirement on environmental grounds is fair game but whether the cost should be accepted is a political choice. 

NSPI is in a conflict of interest. We need a different process. An independent body should author the integrated resource plan. They should be fully informed about NSPI’s views.

They should communicate directly with Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat power, with independent wind producers, and with tidal power companies. The UARB cannot do any of these things.

The resulting plan should undergo the same UARB review that NSPI’s version would. This enhances the likelihood that Nova Scotians will get the least-cost alternative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News