N.S., Maine to work on generation research

NB Power eCharge Network expands EV charging in New Brunswick with fast chargers, level 2 stations, Trans-Canada Highway coverage, and green infrastructure, enabling worry-free electric vehicle travel and lower emissions across the province.

Key Points

NB Power eCharge Network is a provincewide EV charging system with fast and level 2 stations for reliable travel.

✅ 15 fast-charging sites on Trans-Canada and northern New Brunswick

✅ Level 2 stations at highways, municipalities, and businesses

✅ 20-30 minute DC fast charging; cut emissions ~80% and fuel ~75%

NB Power announced Friday the eCharge Network, the province’s first electric vehicle charging network aimed at giving drivers worry-free travel everywhere in the province.

The network includes 15 locations along the province’s busiest highways where both fast-chargers and level-2 chargers will be available. In addition, nine level-2 chargers are already located at participating municipalities and businesses throughout the province. The new locations will be installed by the end of 2017.

NB Power is working with public and private partners to add to the network to enable electric vehicle owners to drive with confidence and to encourage others to make the switch from gas to electric vehicles, supported by a provincial rebate program now available.

“We are incredibly proud to offer our customers and visitors to New Brunswick convenient charging with the launch of our eCharge Network,” said Gaëtan Thomas, president and CEO of NB Power. “Our goal is to make it easy for owners of electric vehicles to drive wherever they choose in New Brunswick, and to encourage more drivers to consider an electric vehicle for their next purchase.”

An electric vehicle owner in New Brunswick can shrink their vehicle carbon footprint by about 80 per cent while reducing their fuel-related costs by about 75 per cent, according to NB Power, and broader grid benefits are being explored through Nova Scotia's vehicle-to-grid pilot across the region.

In addition to the network of standard charging stations, the eCharge network will also include 400 volt fast-charging stations along the Trans-Canada Highway and in the northern parts of New Brunswick. The first of their kind in New Brunswick, these 15 fast-charging stations, similar to Newfoundland and Labrador's newly completed fast-charging network connecting communities, will enable all-electric vehicles to recharge in as little as 20 to 30 minutes. Fast-charge sites will include standard level-2 stations for both battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

NB Power will install fast-charge and level-2 sites at five locations throughout northern New Brunswick, addressing northern coverage challenges seen elsewhere, such as Labrador's infrastructure gaps today, which will be cost-shared with government. Locations include the areas of Saint-Quentin/Kedgwick, Campbellton, Bathurst, Tracadie, and Miramichi.

“Our government understands that embracing the green economy and reducing our carbon footprint is a priority for New Brunswickers,” said Environment and Local Government Minister Serge Rousselle. “Our climate change action plan calls for a collaborative approach to creating the strategic infrastructure to support electric vehicles throughout all regions in the province, and we are pleased to see this important step underway. New Brunswickers will now have the necessary network to adopt new methods of transportation and contribute to our provincial plan to increase the number of electric vehicles on the road and will help meet emission reduction targets as we work to combat climate change.”

An investment of $500,000 from Natural Resources Canada will go towards purchasing and installing the charging stations for the 10 fast-charging stations along the Trans-Canada Highway.

“The eCharge Network will make it easier for Canadians to choose cleaner options and helps put New Brunswick’s transportation system on a path to a lower-carbon future,” said Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe MP Ginette Petitpas Taylor. “The Government of Canada continues to support green infrastructure in the transportation sector that will advance Canada’s efforts to build a clean economy, create well-paying jobs, and achieve our climate change goals.”

Petitpas Taylor attended for federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr.

Fast chargers are being installed at the following locations along the Trans-Canada Highway across New Brunswick:

– Irving Big Stop, Aulac

– Edmundston Truck Stop

– Irving Big Stop, Saint-André

– Johnson Guardian, Perth-Andover

– Murray’s Irving, Woodstock

– Petro-Canada / Acorn Restaurant, Prince William

– Irving Big Stop, Waasis

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

California Electricity Reserve Mandate requires 3.3 GW of new capacity to bolster grid reliability amid solar power volatility, peak demand, and wildfire-driven blackouts, as CPUC directs PG&E, Edison, and Sempra to procure resource adequacy.

Key Points

A CPUC order for utilities to add 3.3 GW of reserves, safeguarding grid reliability during variable renewables and peaks

✅ 3.3 GW procurement to meet resource adequacy targets

✅ Focus on grid reliability during peak evening demand

✅ Prioritizes renewables, storage; limits new fossil builds

As if California doesn’t have enough problems with its electric service, now state regulators warn the state may be short on power supplies by 2021 if utilities don’t start lining up new resources now.

In the hopes of heading off a shortfall as America goes electric, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered the state’s electricity providers to secure 3.3 additional gigawatts of reserve supplies. That’s enough to power roughly 2.5 million homes. Half of it must be in place by 2021 and the rest by August 2023.

The move comes as California is already struggling to accommodate increasingly large amounts of solar power that regularly send electricity prices plunging below zero and force other generators offline so the region’s grid doesn’t overload. The state is also still reeling from a series of deliberate mass blackouts that utilities imposed last month to keep their power lines from sparking wildfires amid strong winds. And its largest power company, PG&E Corp., went bankrupt in January.

Now as natural gas-fired power plants retire under the state’s climate policies, officials are warning the state could run short on electricity on hot evenings, when solar production fades and commuters get home and crank up their air conditioners. “We have fewer resources that can be quickly turned on that can meet those peaks,” utilities commission member Liane Randolph said Thursday before the panel approved the order to beef up reserves.

The 3.3 gigawatts that utilities must line up is in addition to a state rule requiring them to sign contracts for 15% more electricity than they expect to need. Some critics question the need for added supplies, particularly after the state went on a plant-building boom in the 2000s.

But California’s grid managers say the risk of a shortfall is real and could be as high as 4.7 gigawatts, especially during heat waves that test the grid again. Mark Rothleder, with the California Independent System Operator, said the 15% cushion is a holdover from the days before big solar and wind farms made the grid more volatile. Now it may need to be increased, he said.

“We’re not in that world anymore,” said Rothleder, the operator’s vice president of state regulatory affairs. “The complexity of the system and the resources we have now are much different.”

The state’s three major utilities, PG&E, Edison International and Sempra Energy, will be largely responsible for securing new supplies. The commission banned fossil fuels from being used at any new power generators built to meet the requirement — though it left the door open for expansions at existing ones.

Some analysts argue California is exporting its energy policies to Western states, making electricity more costly and less reliable.

PG&E said in an emailed statement that it was pleased the commission didn’t adopt an earlier proposal to require 4 gigawatts of additional resources. Edison similarly said it was “supportive.” Sempra didn’t immediately respond with comment.

Extending Deadlines

The pending plant closures are being hastened by a 2020 deadline requiring California’s coastal generators to stop using aging seawater-cooling systems. Some gas-fired power plants have said they’ll simply close instead of installing costly new cooling systems. So the commission on Thursday also asked California water regulators to extend the deadline for five plants.

The Sierra Club, meanwhile, called on regulators to turn away from fossil fuels altogether, saying their decision Thursday “sets California back on its progress toward a clean energy future.”

The move to push back the deadline also faces opposition from neighboring towns. Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, whose city is home to one of the plants in line for an extension, told the commission it wasn’t necessary, since California utilities already have plenty of electricity reserves.

“It’s just piling on to that reserve margin,” Brand said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Champlain Hudson Power Express connects Hydro-Québec hydropower to the New York grid via a 1.25 GW high voltage transmission line, enabling renewable energy imports, grid decarbonization, storage synergy, and reduced fossil fuel generation.

Key Points

A 1.25 GW cross-border transmission project delivering Hydro-Québec hydropower to New York City to displace fossil power.

✅ 1.25 GW buried HV line from Quebec to Astoria, Queens

✅ Supports renewable imports and grid decarbonization in NYC

✅ Enables two-way trade and reservoir storage synergy

Last week, Quebec Premier François Legault took to Twitter to celebrate after New York State authorities tentatively approved the first new transmission line in three decades, the Champlain Hudson Power Express, that would connect Quebec’s vast hydroelectric network to the northeastern U.S. grid.

“C’est une immense nouvelle pour l’environnement. De l’énergie fossile sera remplacée par de l’énergie renouvelable,” he tweeted, or translated to English: “This is huge news for the environment. Fossil fuels will be replaced by renewable energy.”

The proposed construction of a 1.25 gigawatt transmission line from southern Quebec to Astoria, Queens, known as the Champlain Hudson Power Express, ties into a longer term strategy by Hydro Québec: in the coming decade, as cities such as New York and Boston look to transition away from fossil fuel-generated electricity and decarbonize their grids, Hydro-Québec sees opportunities to supply them with energy from its vast network of 61 hydroelectric generating stations and other renewable power, as Quebec has closed the door on nuclear power in recent years.

Already, the provincial utility is one of North America’s largest energy producers, generating $2.3 billion in net income in 2020, and planning to increase hydropower capacity over the near term. Hydro-Quebec has said it intends to increase exports and had set a goal of reaching $5.2 billion in net income by 2030, though its forecasts are currently under review.

But just as oil and gas companies have encountered opposition to nearly every new pipeline, Hydro-Québec is finding resistance as it seeks to expand its pathways into major export markets, which are all in the U.S. northeast. Indeed, some fossil fuel companies that would be displaced by Hydro-Québec are fighting to block the construction of its new transmission lines.

“Linear projects — be it a transmission line or a pipeline or highway or whatever — there’s always a certain amount of public opposition,” Gary Sutherland, director of strategic affairs and stakeholder relations for Hydro-Québec, told the Financial Post, “which is a good thing because it makes the project developer ask the right questions.”

While Sutherland said he isn’t expecting opposition to the line into New York, he acknowledged Hydro-Québec also didn’t fully anticipate the opposition encountered with the New England Clean Energy Connect, a 1.2 gigawatt transmission line that would cost an estimated US$950 million and run from Quebec through Maine, eventually connecting to Massachusetts’ grid.

In Maine, natural gas and nuclear energy companies, which stand to lose market share, and also environmentalists, who oppose logging through sensitive habitat, both oppose the project.

In August, Maine’s highest court invalidated a lease for the land where the lines were slated to be built, throwing permits into question. Meanwhile, Calpine Corporation and Vistra Energy Corp., both Texas-based companies that operate natural gas plants in Maine, formed a political action committee called Mainers for Local Power. It has raised nearly US$8 million to fight the transmission line, according to filings with the Maine Ethics Commission.

Neither Calpine nor Vistra could be reached for comment by the time of publication.

“It’s been 30 years since we built a transmission line into the U.S. northeast,” said Sutherland. “In that time we have increased our exports significantly … but we haven’t been able to build out the corresponding transmission to get that energy from point A to point B.”

Indeed, since 2003, Hydro-Québec’s exports outside the province have grown from roughly two terrawatts per year to more than 30 terrawatts, including recent deals with NB Power to move more electricity into New Brunswick. The provincial utility produces around 210 terrawatts annually, but uses less than 178 terrawatts in Quebec.

Linear projects — be it a transmission line or a pipeline or highway or whatever — there’s always a certain amount of public opposition

In Massachusetts, it has signed contracts to supply 9.4 terrawatts annually — an amount roughly equivalent to 8 per cent of the New England region’s total consumption. Meanwhile, in New York, Hydro-Québec is in the final stages of negotiating a 25-year contract to sell 10.4 terawatts — about 20 per cent of New York City’s annual consumption.

In his tweets, Legault described the New York contract as being worth more than $20 billion over 25 years, although Hydro Québec declined to comment on the value because the contract is still under negotiation and needs approval by New York’s Public Services Commission — expected by mid-December.

Both regions are planning to build out solar and wind power to meet their growing clean energy needs and reach ambitious 2030 decarbonization targets. New York has legislated a goal of 70 per cent renewable power by that time, while Massachusetts has called for a 50 per cent reduction in emissions in the same period.

Hydro-Quebec signage is displayed on a manhole cover in Montreal. PHOTO BY BRENT LEWIN/BLOOMBERG FILES
According to a 2020 paper titled “Two Way Trade in Green Electrons,” written by three researchers at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts’ Institute for Technology, Quebec’s hydropower, which like fossil fuels can be dispatched, will help cheaply and efficiently decarbonize these grids.

“Today transmission capacity is used to deliver energy south, from Quebec to the northeast,” the researchers wrote, adding, “…in a future low-carbon grid, it is economically optimal to use the transmission to send energy in both directions.”

That is, once new transmission lines and wind and solar power are built, New York and Massachusetts could send excess energy into Quebec where it could be stored in hydroelectric reservoirs until needed.

“This is the future of this northeast region, as New York state and New England are decarbonizing,” said Sutherland. “The only renewable energies they can put on the grid are intermittent, so they’re going to need this backup and right to the north of them, they’ve got Hydro-Québec as backup.”

Hydro-Québec already sells roughly 7 terrawatts of electricity per year into New York on the spot market, but Sutherland says it is constrained by transmission constraints that limit additional deliveries.

And because transmission lines can cost billions of dollars to build, he said Hydro-Québec needs the security of long-term contracts that ensure it will be paid back over time, aligning with its broader $185-billion transition strategy to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Sutherland expressed confidence that the Champlain Hudson Power Express project would be constructed by 2025. He noted its partners, Blackstone-backed Transmission Developers, have been working on the project for more than a decade, and have already won support from labour unions, some environmental groups and industry.

The project calls for a barge to move through Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, and dig a trench while unspooling and burying two high voltage cables, each about 10-12 centimetres in diameter. In certain sections of the Hudson River, known to have high concentrations of PCP pollutants, the cable would be buried underground alongside the river.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Electricity Rates update: OEB sets time-of-use and tiered pricing for residential customers, with kWh charges for peak, mid-peak, and off-peak periods reflecting COVID-19 impacts on demand, supply costs, and pricing.

Key Points

Ontario Electricity Rates are OEB-set time-of-use and tiered prices that set per-kWh costs for residential customers.

✅ Time-of-use: 21.7 peak, 15.0 mid-peak, 10.5 off-peak cents/kWh

✅ Tiered: 12.6 cents/kWh up to 1000 kWh, then 14.6 cents/kWh

✅ Average 700 kWh home pays about $2.24 more per month

Energy bills for the typical Ontario home are going up by about two per cent with fixed pricing coming to an end on Nov. 1, the Ontario Energy Board says. 

The province's electricity regulator has released new time-of-use pricing and says the rate for the average residential customer using 700 kWh per month will increase by about $2.24.

The change comes as Ontario stretches into its eight month of the COVID-19 pandemic with new case counts reaching levels higher than ever seen before.

Time-of-use pricing had been scrapped for residential bills for much for the pandemic with a single fixed COVID-19 hydro rate set for all hours of the day. The move, which came into effect June 1, was meant "to support families, small business and farms while Ontario plans for the safe and gradual reopening of the province," the OEB said at the time.

Ontario later set the off-peak price until February 7 around the clock to provide additional relief.

Fixed pricing meant customers' bills reflected how much power they used, rather than when they used it. Customers were charged 12.8 cents/kWh under the COVID-19 recovery rate no matter their time of use.

Beginning November, the province says customers can choose between time-of-use and tiered pricing options. Rates for time-of-use plans will be 21.7 cents/kWh during peak hours, 15 cents/kWh for mid-peak use and 10.5 cents/kWh for off-peak use. 

Customers choosing tiered pricing will pay 12.6 cents/kWh for the first 1000 kWh each month and then 14.6 cents/kWh for any power used beyond that.

The energy board says the increase in pricing reflects "a combination of factors, including those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, that have affected demand, supply costs and prices in the summer and fall of 2020."

Asked for his reaction to the move Tuesday, Premier Doug Ford said, "I hate it," adding the province inherited an energy "mess" from the previous Liberal government and are "chipping away at it."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News