Amtrak: No cause yet for power dip

Nalcor Energy Pandemic Loss underscores Muskrat Falls delays, hydroelectric risks, oil price shocks, and COVID-19 impacts, affecting ratepayers, provincial debt, timelines, and software commissioning for the Churchill River project and Atlantic Canada subsea transmission.

Key Points

A $171M Q1 2020 downturn linked to COVID-19, oil price collapse, and Muskrat Falls delays impacting schedules and costs.

✅ Q1 2020 profit swing: +$92M to -$171M amid oil price crash

✅ Muskrat Falls timeline slips; cost may reach $13.1B

✅ Software, workforce, COVID-19 constraints slow commissioning

Newfoundland and Labrador's Crown energy corporation reported a pandemic-related profit loss from the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, along with further complications to the beleaguered Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

Nalcor Energy recorded a profit loss of $171 million in the first quarter of 2020, down from a $92 million profit in the same period last year, due in part to falling oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The company released its financial statements for 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, and officials discussed the numbers in a livestreamed presentation that detailed the impact of the global health crisis on the company's operations.

The loss in the first quarter was caused by lower profits from electricity sales and a drop in oil prices due to the pandemic and other global events, company officials said.

The novel coronavirus also added to the troubles plaguing the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam on Labrador's Churchill River, amid Quebec-N.L. energy tensions that long predate the pandemic.

Work at the remote site stopped in March over concerns about spreading the virus. Operations have been resuming slowly, with a reduced workforce tackling the remaining jobs.

Officials with Nalcor said it will likely be another year before the megaproject is complete.

CEO Stan Marshall estimates the months of delays could bring the total cost to $13.1 billion including financing, up from the previous estimate of $12.7 billion -- though the total impact of the coronavirus on the project's price tag has yet to be determined.

"If we're going to shut down again, all of that's wrong," Marshall said. "But otherwise, we can just carry on and we'll have a good idea of the productivity level. I'm hoping that by September we'll have a more definitive number here."

The 824 megawatt hydroelectric dam will eventually send power to Newfoundland, and later Nova Scotia, through subsea cables, even as Nova Scotia boosts wind and solar in its energy mix.

It has seen costs essentially double since it was approved in 2012, and faced significant delays even before pandemic-forced shutdowns in North America and around the world this spring.

Cost and schedule overruns were the subject of a sweeping inquiry that held hearings last year, while broader generation choices like biomass use have drawn scrutiny as well.

The commissioner's report faulted previous governments for failing to protect residents by proceeding with the project no matter what, and for placing trust in Nalcor executives who "frequently" concealed information about schedule, cost and related risks.

Some of the latest delays have come from challenges with the development of software required to run the transmission link between Labrador and Newfoundland, where winter reliability issues have been flagged in reports.

The software is still being worked out, Marshall said Tuesday, and the four units at the dam will come online gradually over the next year.

"It's not an all or nothing thing," Marshall said of the final work stages.
Nalcor's financial snapshot follows a bleak fiscal update from the province this month. The Liberal government reported a net debt of $14.2 billion and a deficit of more than $1.1 billion, even as a recent Churchill Falls deal promised new revenues for the province, citing challenges from pandemic-related closures and oil production shutdowns.

Finance Minister Tom Osborne said at the time that help from Ottawa will be necessary to get the province's finances back on track.

Muskrat Falls represents about one-third of the province's debt, and is set to produce more power than the province of about half a million people requires. Anticipated rate increases due to the ballooning costs and questions about Muskrat Falls benefits have posed a significant political challenge for the provincial government.

Ottawa has agreed to work with Newfoundland and Labrador on a rewrite of the project's financial structure, scrapping the format agreed upon in past federal-provincial loan agreements in order to ease the burden on ratepayers, while some argue independent planning would better safeguard ratepayers.

Marshall, a former Fortis CEO who was brought in to lead Nalcor in 2016, has called the project a "boondoggle" and committed to seeing it completed within four years. Though that plan has been disrupted by the pandemic, Marshall said the end is in sight.

"I'm looking forward to a year from now. And I hope to be gone," Marshall said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Clean Electricity Regulations outline a 2035 net-zero grid target, driving decarbonization via wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, carbon capture, and efficiency, balancing reliability, affordability, and federal-provincial collaboration while phasing out coal and limiting fossil-fuel generation.

Key Points

Federal rules to cap CO2 from power plants and deliver a reliable, affordable net-zero grid by 2035.

✅ Applies to fossil-fired units; standards effective by Jan 1, 2035.

✅ Promotes wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, carbon capture, and efficiency.

✅ Balances reliability, affordability, and emissions cuts; ongoing consultation.

Saskatchewan’s premier said the federal government is “changing goalposts” with its proposed target for a net-zero electricity grid.

“We were looking at a net-zero plan in Saskatchewan and across Canada by the year 2050. That’s now been bumped to 2035. Well there are provinces that quite frankly aren’t going to achieve those types of targets by 2035,” Premier Scott Moe said Wednesday.

Ottawa proposed the Clean Electricity Regulations – formerly the Clean Electricity Standard – as part of its target for Canada to transition to net-zero emissions by 2050.

The regulations would help the country progress towards an updated proposed goal of a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.

“They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity,” Moe said.

The Government of Canada was seeking feedback from stakeholders on the plan’s regulatory framework document earlier this year, up until August 2022.

“The clean electricity standard is something that’s still being consulted on and we certainly heard the views of Saskatchewan – not just Saskatchewan, many other provinces – and I think that’s something that’s being reflected on,” Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s minister of natural resources, said during an event near Regina Wednesday.

“We also recognize that the federal government has a role to play in helping provinces to make the kinds of changes that would need to be made in order to actually achieve a clean grid,” Wilkinson added.

The information received during the consultation will help inform the development of the proposed regulations, which are expected to be released before the end of the year, according to the federal government.

NET-ZERO ELECTRICITY GRID
The federal government said its Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) is part of a suite of measures, as the country moves towards a broad “decarbonization” of the economy, with Alberta's clean electricity path illustrating provincial approaches as well.

Net-zero emissions would mean Canada’s economy would either emit no greenhouse gas emissions or offset its emissions.

The plan encourages energy efficiency, abatement and non-emitting generation technologies such as carbon capture and storage and electricity generation options such as solar, wind, geothermal, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and hydro, among others.

The government suggests consumer costs could be lowered by using some of these energy efficiency techniques, alongside demand management and a shift to lower-cost wind and solar power, echoing initiatives like the SaskPower 10% rebate aimed at affordability.

The CER focuses on three principles, each tied to affordability debates like the SaskPower rate hike in Saskatchewan:

 Maximize greenhouse gas reductions to achieve the 2035 target
 Ensure a reliable electrical grid to support Canadians and the economy
 Maintain electrical affordability

“Achieving a net-zero electricity supply is key to reaching Canada’s climate targets in two ways,” the government said in its proposed regulations.

“First, it will reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions from the production of electricity. Second, using clean electricity instead of fossil fuels in vehicles, heating and industry will reduce emissions from those sectors too.

The regulations would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generating units that combust any amount of fossil fuel, have a capacity above a small megawatt threshold and sell electricity onto a regulated electricity system.

New rules would also be implemented for the development of new electricity generation units firing fossil fuels in or after 2025 and existing units. All units would be subject to emission standards by Jan. 1, 2035, at the latest.

The federal government launched consultations on the proposed regulations in March 2022.

Canada also has a 2030 emissions reduction plan that works towards meeting its Paris Agreement target to reduce emissions by 40-45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. This plan includes regulations to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030.

COLLABORATION
The province recently introduced the Saskatchewan First Act, in an attempt to confirm its own jurisdiction and sovereignty when it comes to natural resources.

The act would amend Saskatchewan’s constitution to exert exclusive legislative jurisdiction under the Constitution of Canada.

The province is seeking jurisdiction over the exploration of non-renewable resources, the development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural and forestry resources, and the operation of sites and facilities for the generation and production of electrical energy.

While the federal government and Saskatchewan have come head-to-head publicly over several policy concerns in the past year, both sides remain open to collaborating on issues surrounding natural resources.

“We do have provincial jurisdiction in the development of these natural resources. We’d like to work collaboratively with the federal government on developing some of the most sustainable potash, uranium, agri-food products in the world,” Moe said.

Minister Wilkinson noted that while both the federal and provincial governments aim to respect each other’s jurisdiction, there is often some overlap, particularly in the case of environmental and economic policies, with Alberta's electricity sector changes underscoring those tensions as well.

“My view is we should endeavour to try to figure out ways that we can work together, and to ensure that we’re actually making progress for Saskatchewanians and for Canadians,” Wilkinson said.

“I think that Canadians expect us to try to figure out ways to work together, and where there are some disputes that can’t get resolved, ultimately the Supreme Court will decide on the issue of jurisdiction as they did in the case on the price on pollution.”

Moe said Saskatchewan is always open to working with the federal government, but not at the expense of its “provincial, constitutional autonomy.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Labrador Island Link Reliability faces scrutiny as Nalcor Energy and General Electric address software issues; Liberty Consulting warns of Holyrood risks, winter outages, grid stability concerns, and PUB oversight for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Key Points

It is the expected dependability of the link this winter, currently uncertain due to GE software and Holyrood risks.

✅ GE software delays may hinder reliable in-service by mid-November.

✅ Holyrood performance issues increase winter outage risk.

✅ PUB directs Hydro to plan contingencies and improve assets.

An independent consultant is questioning if the brand new Labrador Island link can be counted on to supply power to Newfoundland this coming winter.

In June, Nalcor Energy confirmed it had successfully sent power from Churchill Falls to the Avalon Peninsula through its more than 1500-kilometre link, but now the Liberty Consulting Group says it doesn't expect the link will be up and running consistently this winter.

"What we have learned supports a conclusion that the Labrador Island Link is unlikely to be reliably in commercial operation at the start of the winter," says the report dated Aug. 30, 2018.

The link relies on software provided by General Electric but Liberty says there are lingering questions about GE's ability to ensure the necessary software will be in place this fall.

"At an August meeting, company representatives did not express confidence in GE's ability to meet an in-service date for the Labrador Island Link of mid-November," says the report.

Liberty also says testing the link for a brief period this spring and fall doesn't demonstrate long-term reliability.

"The link will remain prone to the uncertainties any new major facility faces early in its operating life, especially one involving technology new to the operating company," according to the report.

Holyrood trouble

The report goes on to say island residents should also be worried about the reliability of the troubled Holyrood facility — a facility that's important when demand for energy is high during winter months.

Liberty says "poor performance at the Holyrood thermal generating station increases the risk of outages considerably."

The group's report concludes the deteriorating condition of Holyrood is a major threat to the island's power supply and Liberty says that threat "could produce very severe consequences when the Labrador Island Link is unavailable."

The consultant says questions about the Labrador Island Link's readiness combined with concerns about the reliability of Holyrood may mean power outages, and for vulnerable customers, debates over hydro disconnections policies often intensify during winter.

"This all suggests that, for at least part of this winter, the island interconnected system may be at the mercy of the weather, where severe events can test utilities' storm response efforts further."

The consultant's report also includes five recommendations to the PUB, reflecting the kind of focused nuclear alert investigation follow-up seen elsewhere.

In essence, Liberty is calling for the board to direct Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to make plans for the possibility that the link won't be available this winter. It's also calling on hydro to do more to improve the reliability of its other assets, such as Holyrood, as some operators have even contemplated locking down key staff to maintain operations during crises.

Response to Liberty's report

Nalcor CEO Stan Marshall defended the Crown corporation's winter preparedness in an email statement to CBC.

"The right level of planning and investment has been made for our existing equipment so we can continue to meet all of our customer electricity needs for this coming winter season," he wrote.

Regarding the Labrador Island Link, Marshall called for patience.

"This is new technology for our province and integrating the new transmission assets into our current electricity system is complex work that takes time," he said.

There is also a more detailed response from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which was sent to the province's Public Utiltiies Board.

Hydro says it will keep testing the Labrador Island Link and increasing the megawatts that are wheeled through it. It also says in October it will begin to give the PUB regular reports on the link's anticipated in-service date.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Automaker EV Fast-Charging Network will deploy 30,000 DC fast chargers across US and Canada, supporting CCS and NACS, integrating Tesla compatibility, easing range anxiety, and expanding highway and urban charging infrastructure with amenities and uptime.

Key Points

A $1B joint venture by seven automakers to build 30,000 DC fast chargers with CCS and NACS across the US and Canada.

✅ 30,000 DC fast chargers by 2030 across US and Canada

✅ Supports CCS and NACS; Tesla compatibility planned

✅ Launching mid-2024; focus on highways, urban hubs, amenities

Seven major automakers announced a plan on Wednesday to nearly double the number of fast chargers in the United States in an effort to address one of the main reasons that people hesitate to buy electric cars, even as the age of electric cars accelerates.

The carmakers — BMW Group, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz Group and Stellantis — will initially invest at least $1 billion in a joint venture that will build 30,000 charging ports on major highways and other locations in the United States and Canada.

The United States and Canada have about 36,000 fast chargers — those that can replenish a drained battery in 30 minutes or less. In some sparsely populated areas, such chargers can be hundreds of miles apart. Surveys show that fear about not being able to find a charger during longer journeys is a major reason that some car buyers are reluctant to buy electric vehicles.

Sales of electric vehicles have risen quickly in the United States as the market hits an inflection point, but there are signs that demand is softening. As a result, Tesla, Ford and other carmakers have cut prices in recent months and are offering incentives. Popular models that had long waiting lists last year are now available in a few days or weeks.

Major carmakers are investing billions of dollars to manufacture electric vehicles and batteries and to establish supplier networks. Having staked their futures on the technology, they have a strong incentive to ensure that electric vehicles catch on with car buyers, even as gas-electric hybrids help bridge the transition.

The chargers installed by the joint venture will have plugs designed for the connections used by most carmakers other than Tesla, as well as the standard developed by Tesla, amid fights for control over charging, that Ford, G.M. and other companies have said they intend to switch to in 2025.

“The better experience people have, the faster E.V. adoption will grow,” Mary T. Barra, the chief executive of General Motors, said in a statement.

The seven automakers plan to formalize the joint venture and announce its name by the end of the year, Chris Martin, a Honda spokesman, said. The first chargers will begin operating around the middle of 2024, he said, with all 30,000 in place by the end of the decade.

The joint venture is open to adding other partners, he said. Among major automakers, Ford was a notable absence from the announcement on Wednesday. The company said in a statement on Wednesday that it would continue to iThe partnership also does not include Volkswagen. The company is a majority shareholder of Electrify America, one of the largest fast-charging providers.

Tesla accounts for more than half the fast chargers in the United States and has said it will open its networks to other car brands, though, so far, it has only made fewer than 100 ports available. Owners of Ford and G.M. vehicles, among others, will be able to connect to 12,000 Tesla fast chargers using an adapter beginning next year. In 2025, Ford and G.M. plan to make models designed to take the Tesla plug without an adapter.

The decision by the seven carmakers to form the joint venture is an indication that they do not intend to rely solely on Tesla, which dominates sales of electric vehicles, for charging.

The chargers being built by the joint venture will be concentrated in urban areas and along major highways, especially those used most heavily by vacationers and other travelers, the companies said in a joint statement. Charging stations will be close to restrooms, restaurants and other amenities. The partners said they would try to take advantage of federal and state funds available for charging infrastructure amid questions about whether the U.S. has the power to charge it at scale.

Most electric vehicle owners charge at home and rarely need to use public chargers. Home chargers typically replenish batteries overnight. Most public chargers, about 125,000 in the United States and Canada, also operate relatively slowly — taking four to 10 hours to do the job.nvest in its own network, which allows Ford owners to charge from a variety of providers with one mobile phone app.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News