NRU reactor not likely to go online before 2010

Hydro One investment risk reflects Ontario government influence, board shakeup, Avista acquisition uncertainty, regulatory hearings, dividend growth prospects, and utility M&A moves in Peterborough, with stock volatility since the 2015 IPO.

Key Points

Hydro One investment risk stems from political control, governance turnover, regulatory outcomes, and uncertain M&A.

✅ Ontario retains near-50% stake, affecting autonomy and policy risk

✅ Board overhaul and CEO exit create governance uncertainty

✅ Avista deal, OEB hearings, local utility M&A drive outcomes

Hydro One may be only half-owned by the province on Ontario but that’s enough to cause uncertainty about the company’s future, thus making for an investment risk, says Douglas Kee of Leon Frazer & Associates.

Since its IPO in November of 2015, Hydro One has seen its share of ups and downs, including a Q2 profit decline earlier this year, mostly downs at this point. Currently trading at $19.87, the stock has lost 11 per cent of its value in 2018 and 12 per cent over the last 12 months, despite a one-time gain boosting Q2 profit that followed a court ruling.

This year has been a turbulent one, to say the least, as newly elected Ontario premier Doug Ford made good this summer on his campaign promise re Hydro One by forcing the resignation of the company’s 14-person board of directors along with the retirement of its chief executive, an event that saw Hydro One shares fall amid the turmoil. An interim CEO has been found and a new 10-person board and chairman put in place, but Kee says it’s unclear what impact the shakeup will ultimately have, other than delaying a promising-looking deal to purchase US utility Avista Corp, with the companies moving to ask the U.S. regulator to reconsider the order.

Douglas Kee’s take on Hydro One stock

“We looked at Hydro One a couple of times two years ago and just decided that with the Ontario government’s still owning a big chunk of the company … there are other public companies where you get the same kind of yield, the same kind of dividend growth, so we just avoided it,” says Kee, managing director and chief investment officer with Leon Frazer & Associates, to BNN Bloomberg.

“The old board versus the new board, I’m not sure that there’s much of an improvement. It was politics more than anything,” he says. “The unfortunate part is that the acquisition they were making in the United States is kind of on hold for now. The regulatory procedures have gone ahead but they are worried, and I guess the new board has to make a decision whether to go ahead with it or not.”

“Their transmissions side is coming up for regulatory hearings next year, which could be difficult in Ontario,” says Kee. “The offset to that is that there are a lot of municipal distributions systems in Ontario that may be sold — they bought one in Peterborough recently, which was a good deal for them. There may be more of that coming too.”

Last month, Hydro One reached an agreement with the City of Peterborough to buy its Peterborough Distribution utility which serves about 37,000 customers for $105 million. Another deal to purchase Orillia Power Distribution Corp for $41 million has been cancelled after an appeal to the Ontario Energy Board was denied in late August. Hydro One’s sought-after Avista Corp acquisition is reported to be worth $7 billion.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

B.C. LNG Electrification embeds clean hydro and wind power into low-emission liquefied natural gas, cutting carbon intensity, enabling coal displacement in Asia, and opening grid-scale demand for independent power producers and ITMO-based climate accounting.

Key Points

Powering LNG with clean electricity cuts carbon intensity, displaces coal, and grows demand for B.C.'s clean power.

✅ Electric-drive LNG cuts emissions intensity by up to 80%.

✅ Creates major grid load, boosting B.C. independent power producers.

✅ Enables ITMO crediting when coal displacement is verified.

B.C. has abundant clean power – if only there was a way to ship those electrons across the sea to help coal-dependent countries reduce their emissions, and even regionally, Alberta–B.C. grid link benefits could help move surplus power domestically.

Natural gas that is liquefied using clean hydro and wind power and then exported would be, in a sense, a way of embedding B.C.’s low emission electricity in another form of energy, and, alongside the Canada–Germany clean energy pact, part of a broader export strategy.

Given the increased demand that could come from an LNG industry – especially one that moves towards greater electrification and, as the IEA net-zero electricity report notes, broader system demand – poses some potentially big opportunities for B.C.’s clean energy independent power sector, as those attending the Clean Energy Association of BC's annual at the Generate conference heard recently.

At a session on LNG electrification, delegates were told that LNG produced in B.C. with electricity could have some significant environmental benefits.

Given how much power an LNG plant that uses electric drive consumes, an electrified LNG industry could also pose some significant opportunities for independent power producers – a sector that had the wind taken out of its sails with the sanctioning of the Site C dam project.

Only one LNG plant being built in B.C. – Woodfibre LNG – will use electric drive to produce LNG, although the companies behind Kitimat LNG have changed their original design plans, and now plan to use electric drive drive as well.

Even small LNG plants that use electric drive require a lot of power.

“We’re talking about a lot of power, since it’s one of the biggest consumers you can connect to a grid,” said Sven Demmig, head of project development for Siemens.

Most LNG plants still burn natural gas to drive the liquefaction process – a choice that intersects with climate policy and electricity grids in Canada. They typically generate 0.35 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG produced.

Because it will use electric drive, LNG produced by Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity that is 80% less than LNG produced in the Gulf of Mexico, said Woodfibre president David Keane.

In B.C., the benchmark for GHG intensities for LNG plants has been set at 0.16 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG. Above that, LNG producers would need to pay higher carbon taxes than those that are below the benchmark.

The LNG Canada plant has an intensity of 0.15 tonnes og CO2e per tonne of LNG. Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity of just 0.059, thanks to electric drive.

“So we will be significantly less than any operating facility in the world,” Keane said.

Keane said Sinopec has recently estimated that it expects China’s demand for natural gas to grow by 82% by 2030.

“So China will, in fact, get its gas supply,” Keane said. “The question is: where will that supply come from?

“For every tonne of LNG that’s being produced today in the United States -- and tonne of LNG that we’re not producing in Canada -- we’re seeing about 10 million tonnes of carbon leakage every single year.”

The first Canadian company to produce LNG that ended up in China is FortisBC. Small independent operators have been buying LNG from FortisBC’s Tilbury Island plant and shipping to China in ISO containers on container ships.

David Bennett, director of communications for FortisBC, said those shipments are traced to industries in China that are, indeed, using LNG instead of coal power now.

“We know where those shipping containers are going,” he said. “They’re actually going to displace coal in factories in China.”

Verifying what the LNG is used for is important, if Canadian producers want to claim any kind of climate credit. LNG shipped to Japan or South Korea to displace nuclear power, for example, would actually result in a net increase in GHGs. But used to displace coal, the emissions reductions can be significant, since natural gas produces about half the CO2 that coal does.

The problem for LNG producers here is B.C.’s emissions reduction targets as they stand today. Even LNG produced with electricity will produce some GHGs. The fact that LNG that could dramatically reduce GHGs in other countries, if it displaces coal power, does not count in B.C.’s carbon accounting.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries agree to set their own reduction targets, and, for Canada, cleaning up Canada’s electricity remains critical to meeting climate pledges, but don’t typically get to claim any reductions that might result outside their own country.

Canada is exploring the use of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMO) under the Under the Paris Agreement to allow Canada to claim some of the GHG reductions that result in other countries, like China, through the export of Canadian LNG.

“For example, if I were producing 4 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. and I was selling 100% of my LNG to China, and I can verify that they’re replacing coal…they would have a reduction of about 60 or million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions,” Keane said.

“So if they’re buying 4 million tonnes of emissions from us, under these ITMOs, then they have net reduction of 56 million tonnes, we’d have a net increase of zero.”

But even if China and Canada agreed to such a trading arrangement, the United Nations still hasn’t decided just how the rules around ITMOs will work.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hinkley Point C delays highlight EDF cost overruns, energy security risks, and wholesale power prices, complicating UK net zero plans, Sizewell C financing, and small modular reactor adoption across the grid.

Key Points

Delays at EDF's 3.2GW Hinkley Point C push operations to 2031, lift costs to £46bn, and risk pricier UK electricity.

✅ First unit may slip to 2031; second unit date unclear.

✅ LSEG sees 6% wholesale price impact in 2029-2032.

✅ Sizewell C replicates design; SMR contracts expected soon.

Vincent de Rivaz, former CEO of EDF, confidently announced in 2016 the commencement of the UK's first nuclear power station since the 1990s, Hinkley Point C. However, despite milestones such as the reactor roof installation, recent developments have belied this optimism. The French state-owned utility EDF recently disclosed further delays and cost overruns for the 3.2 gigawatt plant in Somerset.

These complications at Hinkley Point C, which is expected to power 6 million homes, have sparked new concerns about the UK's energy strategy and its ambition to decarbonize the grid by 2050.

The UK government's plan to achieve net zero by 2050 includes a significant role for nuclear energy, reflecting analyses that net-zero may not be possible without nuclear and aiming to increase capacity from the current 5.88GW to 24GW by mid-century.

Simon Virley, head of energy at KPMG in the UK, stressed the importance of nuclear energy in transitioning to a net zero power system, echoing industry calls for multiple new stations to meet climate goals. He pointed out that failing to build the necessary capacity could lead to increased reliance on gas.

Hinkley Point C is envisioned as the pioneer in a new wave of nuclear plants intended to augment and replace Britain's existing nuclear fleet, jointly managed by EDF and Centrica. Nuclear power contributed about 14 percent of the UK's electricity in 2022, even as Europe is losing nuclear power across the continent. However, with the planned closure of four out of five plants by March 2028 and rising electricity demand, there is concern about potential power price increases.

Rob Gross, director of the UK Energy Research Centre, emphasized the link between energy security and affordability, highlighting the risk of high electricity prices if reliance on expensive gas increases.

The first 1.6GW reactor at Hinkley Point C, initially set for operation in 2027, may now face delays until 2031, even after first reactor installation milestones were reported. The in-service date for the second unit remains uncertain, with project costs possibly reaching £46bn.

LSEG analysts predict that these delays could increase wholesale power prices by up to 6 percent between 2029 and 2032, assuming the second unit becomes operational in 2033.

Martin Young, an analyst at Investec, warned of the price implications of removing a large power station from the supply side.

In response to these delays, EDF is exploring the extension of its four oldest plants. Jerry Haller, EDF’s former decommissioning director, had previously expressed skepticism about extending the life of the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet, but EDF has since indicated more positive inspection results. The company had already decided to keep the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool plants operational until at least 2026.

Nevertheless, the issues at Hinkley Point C raise doubts about the UK's ability to meet its 2050 nuclear build target of 24GW.

Previous delays at Hinkley were attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, but EDF now cites engineering problems, similar to those experienced at other European power stations using the same technology.

The next major UK nuclear project, Sizewell C in Suffolk, will replicate Hinkley Point C's design, aligning with the UK's green industrial revolution agenda. EDF and the UK government are currently seeking external investment for the £20bn project.

Compared with Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C's financing model involves exposing billpayers to some risk of cost overruns. This, coupled with EDF's track record, could affect investor confidence.

Additionally, the UK government is supporting the development of small modular reactors, while China's nuclear program continues on a steady track, with contracts expected to be awarded later this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

U.S. Offshore Wind Capacity is set to exceed 1 GW by 2024, driven by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and resilient supply chains, with eastern states scaling renewable energy, turbines, and content despite COVID-19 disruptions.

Key Points

Projected gigawatt-scale offshore wind growth enabled by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and East Coast state demand.

✅ 17+ GW leased; only 1,870 MW in announced first phases.

✅ BOEM approvals are critical to reach >1 GW by 2024.

✅ Local supply chains mitigate COVID-19 impacts and lower costs.

Offshore wind in the U.S. will exceed 1 GW of capacity by 2024 and add more than 1 GW annually by 2027, a trajectory consistent with U.S. offshore wind power trends, according to a report released last week by Navigant Research.

The report calculated over 17 GW of offshore state and federal leases for wind production, reflecting forecasts that $1 trillion offshore wind market growth is possible. However, the owners of those leases have only announced first phase plans for 1,870 MW of capacity, leaving much of the projects in early stages with significant room to grow, according to senior research analyst Jesse Broehl.

The Business Network for Offshore Wind (BNOW) believes it is possible to hit 1 GW by 2023-24, according to CEO Liz Burdock. While the economy has taken a hit from the coronavirus pandemic, she said the offshore wind industry can continue growing as "the supply chain from Asia and Europe regains speed this summer, and the administration starts clearing" plans of construction.

BNOW is concerned with the economic hardship imposed on secondary and tertiary U.S. suppliers due to the global spread of COVID-19.

Offshore wind has been touted by many eastern states and governors as an opportunity to create jobs, with U.S. wind employment expected to expand, according to industry forecasts. Analysts see the growing momentum of projects as a way to further lower costs by creating a local supply chain, which could be jeopardized by a long-term shutdown and recession.

"The federal government must act now — today, not in December — and approve project construction and operation plans," a recent BNOW report said. Approving any of the seven projects before BOEM, which has recently received new lease requests, currently would allow small businesses to get to work "following the containment of the coronavirus," but approval of the projects next year "may be too late to keep them solvent."

The prospects for maintaining momentum in the industry falls largely to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The industry cannot hit the 1 GW milestone without project approvals by BOEM, which is revising processes to analyze federal permit applications in the context of "greater build out of offshore wind capacity," according to its website.

"It is heavily dependent on the project approval success," Burdock told Utility Dive.

Currently, seven projects are awaiting determinations from BOEM on their construction operation plans in Massachusetts, New York, where a major offshore wind farm was recently approved, New Jersey and Maryland, with more to be added soon, a BNOW spokesperson told Utility Dive.

To date, only one project has received BOEM approval for development in federal waters, a 12 MW pilot by Dominion Energy and Ørsted in Virginia. The two-turbine project is a stepping stone to a commercial-scale 2.6 GW project the companies say could begin installation as soon as 2024, and gave the developers experience with the permitting process.

In the U.S., developers have the capacity to develop 16.9 GW of offshore wind in federal U.S. lease areas, even as wind power's share of the electricity mix surges nationwide, Broehl told Utility Dive, but much of that is in early stages. The Navigant report did not address any impacts of coronavirus on offshore wind, he said.

Although Massachusetts has legislation in place to require utilities to purchase 1.6 GW of wind power by 2026, and several other projects are in early development stages, Navigant expects the first large offshore wind projects in the U.S. (exceeding 200 MW) will come online in 2022 or later, and the first projects with 400 MW or more capacity are likely to be built by 2024-2025, and lessons from the U.K.'s experience could help accelerate timelines. The U.S. would add about 1.2 GW in 2027, Broehl said.

The federal leasing activities along with the involvement from Eastern states and utilities "virtually guarantees that a large offshore wind market is going to take off in the U.S.," Broehl said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Enbridge Alberta CCS Project targets carbon capture and storage in Alberta, capturing emissions from industrial emitters to advance net-zero goals, leveraging carbon pricing, regulatory support, and a hub model despite a key partner's exit.

Key Points

A proposed Alberta carbon capture hub by Enbridge to store industrial emissions and support net-zero targets.

✅ Seeks emitters across power, oil and gas, and heavy industry

✅ Backed by carbon pricing, regulation, and net-zero mandates

✅ Faces high capex, storage risk, and anchor-tenant uncertainty

Enbridge Inc., a Canadian energy giant, is digging its heels in on its proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in Alberta. This comes despite the recent withdrawal of Capital Power, a major potential emitter that was expected to utilize the CCS technology. Enbridge maintains the project remains viable, but questions linger about its future viability without a cornerstone anchor.

The CCS project, envisioned as a major carbon capture hub in Alberta, aimed to capture emissions from industrial facilities and permanently store them underground. This technology has the potential to play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change, alongside grid solutions like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that can complement decarbonization efforts.

Capital Power's decision to shelve its $2.4 billion Genesee Generating Station project, which was designed to integrate with the CCS hub, threw a wrench into Enbridge's plans. The Genesee project was expected to be a key source of emissions for capture and storage, and its status is being weighed as Ottawa advances the federal coal plan to phase out unabated coal.

Enbridge, however, remains optimistic. The company cites ongoing discussions with other potential emitters interested in utilizing the CCS technology, amid new funding signals such as the U.S. DOE's $110M for CCUS that highlight momentum. They believe the project holds significant value despite Capital Power's departure.

"We are confident in the long-term viability of the project and continue to actively engage with potential customers," said Enbridge spokesperson Rachel Giroux. "Carbon capture and storage is a critical technology for achieving net-zero emissions, and we believe there is a strong business case for our CCS project."

Enbridge's confidence hinges on several factors. Firstly, they believe there is a growing appetite for CCS technology amongst industrial facilities facing increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprint. Regulations and carbon pricing mechanisms, including new U.S. EPA power plant rules that test CCS readiness, could further incentivize companies to adopt CCS solutions.

Secondly, Enbridge highlights the potential for capturing emissions from not just power plants but also from other industrial sectors like oil and gas production and clean hydrogen projects in Canada, where reforming processes can generate CO2. This broader application could significantly increase the captured carbon volume and strengthen the project's economic viability.

However, skepticism remains. Critics point to the high upfront costs associated with CCS development and the nascent stage of the technology. They argue that without a guaranteed stream of captured emissions, the project might not be financially sound. Additionally, the long-term safety and effectiveness of large-scale carbon storage solutions remain under scrutiny.

The success of Enbridge's CCS project hinges on attracting new emitters. Replacing Capital Power's contribution will be a significant challenge. Enbridge will need to demonstrate the project's economic viability and navigate the complex regulatory landscape surrounding CCS technology.

The Alberta government's position on CCS is crucial. While the government has expressed support for the technology, the level of financial and regulatory incentives offered will significantly impact investor confidence, especially as the IEA net-zero outlook underscores Canada's need for much more electricity. A clear and stable policy framework will be essential for attracting emitters to the project.

The future of Enbridge's CCS project remains uncertain. Capital Power's withdrawal is a setback, but Enbridge's continued commitment suggests they believe the technology holds promise. Whether they can find enough emitters to justify the project's development will be a critical test. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of CCS technology in Alberta and Canada's broader efforts to achieve net-zero emissions, including Canada-Germany clean energy cooperation that seeks to scale low-carbon fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News