Power restored to almost all Brooklyn customers

CAISO Clean Energy Transition outlines California's path to 100% carbon-free power by 2045, scaling renewables, battery storage, and offshore wind while safeguarding grid reliability, managing natural gas, and leveraging Western markets like EDAM.

Key Points

CAISO Clean Energy Transition is the plan to reach 100% carbon-free power by 2045 while maintaining grid reliability.

✅ Target: add 7 GW/year to reach 120 GW capacity by 2045

✅ Battery storage up 30x; smooths intermittent solar and wind

✅ EDAM and WEIM enhance imports, savings, and reliability

Mark Rothleder, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President at the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which manages roughly 80% of California’s electric grid, has expressed cautious optimism about meeting the state's ambitious clean energy targets while keeping the lights on across the grid. However, he acknowledges that this journey will not be without its challenges.

California aims to transition its power system to 100% carbon-free sources by 2045, ensuring a reliable electricity supply at reasonable costs for consumers. Rothleder, aware of the task's enormity, likens it to a complex car repair performed while the vehicle is in motion.

Recent achievements have demonstrated California's ability to temporarily sustain its grid using clean energy sources. According to Rothleder, the real challenge lies in maintaining this performance round the clock, every day of the year.

Adding thousands of megawatts of renewable energy into California’s existing 50-gigawatt system, which needs to expand to 120 gigawatts to meet the 2045 goal, poses a significant challenge, though recent grid upgrade funding offers some support for needed infrastructure. CAISO estimates that an addition of 7 gigawatts of clean power per year for the next two decades is necessary, all while ensuring uninterrupted power delivery.

While natural gas currently constitutes California's largest single source of power, Rothleder notes the need to gradually decrease reliance on it, even as it remains an operational necessity in the transition phase.

In 2023, CAISO added 5,660 megawatts of new power to the grid, with plans to integrate over 1,100 additional megawatts in the next six to eight months of 2024. Battery storage, crucial for mitigating the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, has seen substantial growth as California turns to batteries for grid support, increasing 30-fold in three years.

Rothleder emphasizes that electricity reliability is paramount, as consumers always expect power availability. He also highlights the potential of offshore wind projects to significantly contribute to California's power mix by 2045.

The offshore wind industry faces financial and supply chain challenges despite these plans. CAISO’s 20-year outlook indicates a significant increase in utility-scale solar, requiring extensive land use and wider deployment of advanced inverters for grid stability.

Addressing affordability is vital, especially as California residents face increasing utility bills. Rothleder suggests a broader energy cost perspective, encompassing utility and transportation expenses.

Despite smooth grid operations in 2023, challenges in previous years, including extreme weather-induced power outages driven by climate change, underscore the need for a robust, adaptable grid. California imports about a quarter of its power from neighbouring states and participates in the Western Energy Imbalance Market, which has yielded significant savings.

CAISO is also working on establishing an extended day-ahead electricity market (EDAM) to enhance the current energy market's success, building on insights from a Western grid integration report that supports expanded coordination.

Rothleder believes that a thoughtfully designed, diverse power system can offer greater reliability and resilience in the long run. A future grid reliant on multiple, smaller power sources such as microgrids could better absorb potential losses, ensuring a more reliable electricity supply for California.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Wind Power drives cheap electricity rates in Iowa via utility-scale wind turbines, integrated transmission, battery storage, and grid management, delivering renewable energy, stable pricing, and long-term rate freezes through 2028.

Key Points

A vertically integrated wind utility lowering Iowa rates via owned generation, transmission, and advanced grid control.

✅ Owned wind assets meet Iowa residential demand

✅ Integrated transmission lowers costs and losses

✅ Rate freeze through 2028 sustains cheap power

In his latest letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Warren Buffett used the 20th anniversary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy to tout its cheap electricity bills for customers.

When Berkshire purchased the majority share of BHE in 2000, the cost of electricity for its residential customers in Iowa was 8.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on average. Since then, these electricity rates have risen at a paltry <1% per year, with a freeze on rate hikes through 2028. As anyone who pays an electricity bill knows, that is an incredible deal.  

As Buffett himself notes with alacrity, “Last year, the rates [BHE’s competitor in Iowa] charged its residential customers were 61% higher than BHE’s. Recently, that utility received a rate increase that will widen the gap to 70%.”

The Winning Strategy

So, what’s Buffett’s secret to cheap electricity? Wind power.

“The extraordinary differential between our rates and theirs is largely the result of our huge accomplishments in converting wind into electricity,” Buffett explains. 

Wind turbines in Iowa that BHE owns and operates are expected to generate about 25.2 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity for its customers, as projects like Building Energy operations begin to contribute. By Buffett’s estimations, that will be enough to power all of its residential customers’ electricity needs in Iowa.  

The company has plans to increase its renewable energy generation in other regions as well. This year, BHE Canada is expected to start construction on a 117.6MW wind farm in Alberta, Canada with its partner, Renewable Energy Systems, that will provide electricity to 79,000 homes in Canada’s oil country.

Observers note that Alberta is a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels, underscoring the region's unique transition.

But I would argue that the secret to BHE’s success perhaps goes deeper than transitioning to sources of renewable energy. There are plenty of other utility companies that have adopted wind and solar power as an energy source. In the U.S., where renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, at least 50% of electricity customers have the option to buy renewable electricity from their power supplier, according to the Department of Energy. And some states, such as New York, have gone so far as to allow customers to pick from providers who generate their electricity.

What differentiates BHE from a lot of the competition in the utility space is that it owns the means to generate, store, transmit and supply renewable power to its customers across the U.S., U.K. and Canada, with lessons from the U.K. about wind power informing policy.

In its financial filings for 2019, the company reported that it owns 33,600MW of generation capacity and has 33,400 miles of transmission lines, as well as a 50% interest in Electric Transmission Texas (ETT) that has approximately 1,200 miles of transmission lines. This scale and integration enables BHE to be efficient in the distribution and sale of electricity, including selling renewable energy across regions.

BHE is certainly not alone in building renewable-energy fueled electricity dominions. Its largest competitor, NextEra, built 15GW of wind capacity and has started to expand its utility-scale solar installations. Duke Energy owns and operates 2,900 MW of renewable energy, including wind and solar. Exelon operates 40 wind turbine sites across the U.S. that generate 1,500 MW.

Integrated Utilities Power Ahead

It’s easy to see why utility companies see wind as a competitive source of electricity compared to fossil fuels. As I explained in my previous post, Trump’s Wrong About Wind, the cost of building and generating wind energy have fallen significantly over the past decade. Meanwhile, improvements in battery storage and power management through new technological advancements have made it more reliable (Warren Buffett bet on that one too).

But what is also striking is that integrated power and transmission enables these utility companies to make those decisions; both in terms of sourcing power from renewable energy, as well as the pricing of the final product. Until wind and solar power are widespread, these utility companies are going to have an edge of the more fragmented ends of the industry who can’t make these purchasing or pricing decisions independently. 

Warren Buffett very rarely misses a beat. He’s not the Oracle of Omaha for nothing. Berkshire Hathaway’s ownership of BHE has been immensely profitable for its shareholders. In the year ended December 31, 2019, BHE and its subsidiaries reported net income attributable to BHE shareholders of $2.95 billion.

There’s no question that renewable energy will transform the utility industry over the next decade. That change will be led by the likes of BHE, who have the power to invest, control and manage their own energy generation assets.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Western Lithium Supply Localization is accelerating as EV battery makers diversify from China, boosting lithium hydroxide sourcing in North America and Europe, amid Covid-19 disruptions and rising prices, with geothermal brines and local processing.

Key Points

An industry shift to source lithium and processing near EV hubs, reducing China reliance and supply chain risk.

✅ EV makers seek North American and European lithium hydroxide

✅ Prices rise amid Covid-19 and logistics constraints

✅ New extraction: geothermal and oilfield brine projects

The global outbreak of coronavirus will accelerate efforts by western carmakers to localise supplies of lithium for electric car batteries, according to US producer Livent.

The industry was keen to diversify away from China, which produces the bulk of the world’s lithium, a critical material for lithium-ion batteries, said Paul Graves, Livent’s chief executive.

“It’s a conversation that’s starting to happen that was not happening even six months ago,” especially in the US, the former Goldman Sachs banker added.

China produced about 79 per cent of the lithium hydroxide used in electric car batteries last year, according to consultancy CRU, a supply chain that has been disrupted by the virus outbreak and EV shortages in some markets.

Prices for lithium hydroxide rose 3.1 per cent last month, their first increase since May 2018, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, due to the impact of the Covid-19 bug.

Chinese lithium producer Ganfeng Lithium, which supplies major carmakers from Tesla to Volkswagen, said it had raised prices by less than 10 per cent, due to higher production costs and logistical difficulties.

“We can get lithium from lots of places . . . is that really something we’re prepared to rely upon?” Mr Graves said. “People are going to relook at supply chains, including battery recycling initiatives that enhance resilience, and relook at their integrity . . . and they’re going to say is there something we need to do to change our supply chains to make them more shockproof?”

General Motors last week said it was looking to source battery minerals such as lithium and nickel from North America for its new range of electric cars that will use cells made in Ohio by South Korea’s LG Chem.

“Some of these critical minerals could be challenging to obtain; it’s not just cobalt you need to be concerned about but also battery-grade nickel and lithium as well,” said Andy Oury, a lead engineer for batteries at GM. “We’re doing all of this with an eye to sourcing as much of the raw material from North America as possible.”

However, George Heppel, an analyst at CRU, warned it would be difficult to compete with China on costs. “China is always going to be the most competitive place to buy battery raw materials. That’s not likely to change anytime soon,” he said.

Livent, which extracts lithium from brines in northern Argentina, is looking at extracting the mineral from geothermal resources in the US and also wants to build a processing plant in Europe.

The Philadelphia-based company is also working with Canadian start-up E3 Metals to extract lithium from brines in Alberta's oil and gasfields for new projects in Canada.

“We’ll look at doing more in the US and more in Europe,” said Mr Graves, underscoring evolving Canada-U.S. collaboration across EV supply chains.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hurricane Ida New Orleans Infrastructure faced a split outcome: levees and pumps protected against storm surge, while the power grid collapsed as transmission lines failed, prompting large-scale restoration efforts across Louisiana and Mississippi.

Key Points

It summarizes Ida's impact: levees and pumps held, but the power grid failed, causing outages and slow restoration.

✅ Levees and pumps mitigated flooding and storm surge impacts.

✅ All transmission lines failed, crippling the power grid.

✅ Crews and drones assess damage; restoration may take weeks.

Infrastructure in the city of New Orleans turned in a mixed performance against the fury of Hurricane Ida, with the levees and pumps warding off catastrophic flooding even as the electrical grid, part of the broader Louisiana power grid, failed spectacularly.

Ida’s high winds, measuring 150 miles (240 kilometers) an hour at landfall, took out all eight transmissions lines that deliver power into New Orleans, ripped power poles in half and crumpled at least one steel transmission tower into a twisted metal heap, knocking out electricity to all of the city. A total of more than 1.2 million homes and businesses in Louisiana and Mississippi lost power. While about 90,000 customers were reconnected by Monday afternoon, many could face days without electricity, and frustration can mount as seen during the Houston outage after major storms.

In contrast, the New Orleans area’s elaborate flood defenses seem to have held up, a vindication of the Army Corps of Engineers’ $14.5 billion project to rebuild levees, flood gates and pumps in the wake of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While there were reports of scattered deaths tied to Ida, the city escaped the kind of flooding that destroyed entire neighborhoods in Katrina’s wake, left parts of the city uninhabitable for months and claimed 1,800 lives. 

“The situation in New Orleans, as bad as it is today with the power, could be so much worse,” Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards said Monday on the Today Show, praising the levee system’s performance. “All you have to do is go back 16 years to get a glimpse of what that would have been like.”

While the levees’ resiliency is no doubt due to the rebuilding effort that followed Katrina, the starkly different outcomes also stems from the storms’ different characteristics. Katrina slammed the coast with a 30-foot storm surge of ocean water, while preliminary estimates from Ida put its surge far lower. 

Ida’s winds, however, were stronger than Katrina’s, and that’s what ultimately took out so many power lines, a dynamic that also saw Texas utilities struggle during Harvey. Deanna Rodriguez, the chief executive officer of power provider Entergy New Orleans, declined to comment on when service would be restored, saying the company was using helicopters and drones to help assess the damage.

Michael Webber, an energy and engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin, estimated power restoration will take days and possibly weeks, a pattern seen in Florida restoration timelines after major hurricanes, based on the initial damage reports from the storm. More than 25,000 workers from at least 32 states and Washington are mobilized to assist with power restoration efforts, similar to FPL's massive response after Irma, according to the Edison Electric Institute.

“The question is, how long will it take to rebuild these lines,” Webber said. The utilities will first need to complete their damage assessments before they can get a sense of repair timelines, a step that Gulf Power crews have highlighted in past recoveries, he said. “You can imagine that will take days at least, possibly weeks.”

The loss of electricity will have other affects as well, and even though grid resilience during the pandemic was strong, local systems face immediate constraints. Sewer substations, for example, need electricity to keep wastewater moving, said Ghassan Korban, executive director of the New Orleans Sewerage & Water Board. The storm knocked out power to about 80 of the city’s 84 pumping stations, he said at a Monday press conference. “Without electricity, wastewater backs up and can cause overflows,” he said, adding that residents should conserve water to lessen stress on the system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Nova Scotia Energy Modernization Act proposes an independent system operator, focused energy regulation, coal phase-out by 2030, renewable integration, transmission upgrades, and competitive market access to boost consumer trust and grid reliability across the province.

Key Points

Legislation to create an independent system operator and energy regulator, enabling coal phase-out and renewable integration.

✅ Transfers grid control from Nova Scotia Power to an ISO

✅ Establishes a focused energy regulator for multi-sector oversight

✅ Accelerates coal retirement, renewables build-out, and grid upgrades

Nova Scotia is poised for a significant overhaul in how its electricity grid operates, with the electricity market headed for a reshuffle as the province vows changes, following a government announcement that will strip the current electric utility of its grid access control. This move is part of a broader initiative to help the province achieve its ambitious energy objectives, including the cessation of coal usage by 2030.

The announcement came from Tory Rushton, the Minister of Natural Resources, who highlighted the recommendations from the Clean Electricity Task Force's report to make the electricity system more accountable to Nova Scotians according to the authors. The report suggests the creation of two distinct entities: an autonomous system operator for energy system planning and an independent body for energy regulation.

Minister Rushton expressed the government's agreement with these recommendations, while the premier had earlier urged regulators to reject a 14% rate hike to protect customers, stating plans to introduce a new Energy Modernization Act in the next legislative session.

Under the proposed changes, Nova Scotia Power, a privately-owned entity, will retain its operational role but will relinquish control over the electricity grid. This responsibility will shift to an independent system operator, aiming to foster competitive practices essential for phasing out coal—currently a major source of the province’s electricity.

Additionally, the existing Utility and Review Board, which recently approved a 14% rate increase despite political opposition, will undergo rebranding to become the Nova Scotia Regulatory and Appeals Board, reflecting a broader mandate beyond energy. Its electricity-related duties will be transferred to the newly proposed Nova Scotia Energy Board, which will oversee various energy sectors including electricity, natural gas, and retail gasoline.

The task force, led by Alison Scott, a former deputy energy minister, and John MacIsaac, an ex-executive of Nalcor Energy, was established by the province in April 2023 to determine the needs of the electrical system in meeting Nova Scotia's environmental goals.

Minister Rushton praised the report for providing a clear direction towards achieving the province's 2030 environmental targets and beyond. He estimated that establishing the recommended bodies would take 18 months to two years, and noted the government cannot order the utility to cut rates under current law, promising job security for current employees of Nova Scotia Power and the Utility and Review Board throughout the transition.

The report advocates for the new system operator to improve consumer trust by distancing electricity system decisions from Nova Scotia Power's corporate interests. It also critiques the current breadth of the Utility and Review Board's mandate as overly extensive for addressing the energy transition's long-term requirements.

Nova Scotia Power's president, Peter Gregg, welcomed the recommendations, emphasizing their role in the province's shift towards renewable energy, as neighboring jurisdictions like P.E.I. explore community generation to build resilience, he highlighted the importance of a focused energy regulator and a dedicated system operator in advancing essential projects for reliable customer service.

The task force's 12 recommendations also include the requirement for Nova Scotia Power to submit an annual asset management plan for regulatory approval and to produce reports on vegetation and wood pole management. It suggests the government assess Ontario's hydro policies for potential adaptation in Nova Scotia and calls for upgrades to the transmission grid infrastructure, with projected costs detailed by Stantec.

Alison Scott remarked on the comparative expense of coal power against renewable sources like wind, suggesting that investments in the grid to support renewables would be economically beneficial in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News