Florida Electric Utilities Warn About Substation Hazards

European Power Demand During Second Lockdowns remains resilient as winter heating offsets commercial losses; electricity consumption tracks seasonal norms, with weather sensitivity, industrial activity, natural gas shielding, and coal decline shaping dynamics under COVID-19 restrictions.

Key Points

It is expected to remain near seasonal norms, driven by heating, industry activity, and weather sensitive consumption.

✅ Winter heating offsets retail and hospitality closures

✅ Demand sensitivity rises with colder weather in France

✅ Gas generation shielded; coal likely to curtail first

European power demand is likely to hold up in the second round of national lockdown restrictions, with fluctuations most likely driven by changes in the weather.

Traders and analysts expect normal consumption this time around as home heating during the chilly season replaces commercial demand.

Last week electricity consumption in France, Germany and the U.K. was close to business-as-usual levels for the time of year, according to BloombergNEF data. By contrast, power demand had dropped 16% in the first seven days of the springtime lockdown, as reflected by the U.K.’s 10% daily decline reported then.

How power demand performs has significance outside the sector. It’s often seen as a proxy for economic growth and during lockdowns earlier this year, electricity use slumped along with GDP, and stunted hydro and nuclear output could further hobble recovery. For Western Europe, annual demand is expected to be 5% lower than the previous year, a bigger decline than after the global financial crisis in 2008, according to S&P Global Platts.

The Covid-19 limits are lighter than those from earlier in the year “with an explicit drive to preserve economic activity, particularly at the more energy-intensive industrial end of the spectrum,” said Glenn Rickson, head of European power analysis at S&P Global Platts.

Higher levels of working from home will offset some of the losses from shop and hospitality closures, “but also increase the temperature sensitivity of overall gas and power demand, as heat-driven demand records have shown in recent summers,” he said.

The latest wave of national lockdowns began in France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Britain, with Spain having seen April demand plummet earlier in the year, as coronavirus cases surged and officials struggled to keep the spread of the virus under control.

Much of the manufacturing industry remains working for now despite additional restrictions to contain the coronavirus. With the peak of the second wave yet to be reached, “it seems almost inevitable that the fourth quarter will prove economically challenging,” analysts at Alfa Energy said.

There will initially be significantly less of an impact on demand compared with this spring when global daily demand dipped about 15% and electricity consumption in Europe was down 30%, Johan Sigvardsson, power price analyst at Swedish utility Bixia AB said.

The prevalence of electric heating systems in France means that power demand is particularly sensitive to cold weather. A cold spell would significantly boost demand and drive record electricity prices in tight markets.

Similar to the last round of shutdowns, it’s use of coal that will probably be hit first if power demand sags, as transition-focused responses gather pace, leaving natural gas mostly shielded from fluctuations in the market.

“We expect that another drop in power demand would again impact coal-fired generation and shield gas power to some extent,” said Carlos Torres Diaz, an analyst at Rystad Energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Power Grid Blackouts highlight aging infrastructure, rising outages, and declining reliability per DOE and NERC data, with weather-driven failures, cyberattack risk, and underinvestment stressing utilities, transmission lines, and modernization efforts.

Key Points

US power grid blackouts are outages caused by aging grid assets, severe weather, and cyber threats reducing reliability.

✅ DOE and NERC data show rising outage frequency and duration.

✅ Weather now drives 68-73% of major failures since 2008.

✅ Modernization, hardening, and cybersecurity investments are critical.

The United States power grid has more blackouts than any other country in the developed world, according to new data and U.S. blackout warnings that spotlight the country’s aging and unreliable electric system.

The data by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) shows that Americans face more power grid failures lasting at least an hour than residents of other developed nations.

And it’s getting worse.

Going back three decades, the US grid loses power 285 percent more often than it did in 1984, when record keeping began, International Business Times reported. The power outages cost businesses in the United States as much as $150 billion per year, according to the Department of Energy.

Customers in Japan lose power for an average of 4 minutes per year, as compared to customers in the US upper Midwest (92 minutes) and upper Northwest (214), University of Minnesota Professor Massoud Amin told the Times. Amin is director of the Technological Leadership Institute at the school.

#google#

The grid is becoming less dependable each year, he said.

“Each one of these blackouts costs tens of hundreds of millions, up to billions, of dollars in economic losses per event,” Amin said. “… We used to have two to five major weather events per year [that knocked out power], from the ‘50s to the ‘80s. Between 2008 and 2012, major outages caused by weather, reflecting extreme weather trends, increased to 70 to 130 outages per year. Weather used to account for about 17 to 21 percent of all root causes. Now, in the last five years, it’s accounting for 68 to 73 percent of all major outages.”

As previously reported by Off The Grid News, the power grid received a “D+” grade on its power grid report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 2013. The power grid grade card rating means the energy infrastructure is in “poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life.” It further means a “large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration” with a “strong risk of failure.”

“America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s,” the 2013 ASCE report read. “Investment in power transmission has increased since 2005, but ongoing permitting issues, weather events, and limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of failures and power interruptions.”

As The Times noted, the US power grid as it exists today was built shortly after World War II, with the design dating back to Thomas Edison. While Edison was a genius, he and his contemporaries could not have envisioned all the strains the modern world would place upon the grid and the multitude of tech gadgets many Americans treat as an extension of their body. While the drain on the grid has advanced substantially, the infrastructure itself has not.

There are approximately 5 million miles of electrical transmission lines throughout the United States, and thousands of power generating plants dot the landscape. The electrical grid is managed by a group of 3,300 different utilities and serve about 150 million customers, The Times said. The entire power grid system is currently valued at $876 billion.

Many believe the grid is vulnerable to an attack on substations and other threats.

Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano once said that a power grid cyber attack is a matter of “when” not “if,” as Russians hacked utilities incidents have shown.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Kakrapar Unit 3 700MWe PHWR achieved first criticality, showcasing indigenously designed nuclear power, NPCIL operations, Make in India manufacturing, advanced safety systems, grid integration, and closed-fuel-cycle strategy for India's expansion of pressurised heavy water reactors.

Key Points

India's first indigenous 700MWe PHWR at Kakrapar reached criticality, advancing NPCIL's Make in India nuclear power.

✅ First indigenous 700MWe PHWR achieves criticality

✅ NPCIL-built, Make in India components and contractors

✅ Advanced safety: passive decay heat removal, containment spray

Unit 3 of India’s Kakrapar nuclear plant in Gujarat achieved criticality on 22 July, as milestones at nuclear projects worldwide continue to be reached. It is India’s first indigenously designed 700MWe pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR) to achieve this milestone.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated nuclear scientists, saying the reactor is a shining example of the 'Make in India' campaign and of the government's steps to get nuclear back on track in recent years, and a trailblazer for many such future achievements. 

India developed its own nuclear power generation technology as it faced sanctions from the international community following its first nuclear weapons test in in 1974. It has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while China's nuclear energy development is on a steady track according to experts. India has developed a three-stage nuclear programme based on a closed-fuel cycle, where the used fuel of one stage is reprocessed to produce fuel for the next stage.

Kakrapar 3 was developed and is operated by state-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), while in Europe KHNP considered for a Bulgarian project as countries weigh options. The first two units are 220MWe PHWRs commissioned in 1993 and 1995. NPCIL said in a statement that the components and equipment for Kakrapur 3 were “manufactured by lndian industries and the construction and erection was undertaken by various lndian contractors”.

The 700MWe PHWRs have advanced safety features such as steel lined inner containment, a passive decay heat removal system, a containment spray system, hydrogen management systems etc, the statement added.

Fuel loading was completed by mid-March, a crucial step in Abu Dhabi during its commissioning as well. “Thereafter, many tests and procedures were carried out during the lockdown period following all COVlD-19 guidelines.”

“As a next step, various experiments / tests will be conducted and power will be increased progressively, a path also followed by Barakah Unit 1 reaching 100% power before commercial operations.” Kakrapur 3 will be connected to the western grid and will be India’s 23rd nuclear power reactor.

Kakrapur 3 “is the front runner in a series of 16 indigenous 700MWe PHWRs which have been accorded administrative approval and financial sanction by the government and are at various stages of implementation”. Five similar units are under construction at Kakarapur 4, Rajasthan 7&8 and Gorakhpur1&2.

DAE said in January 2019 that India planned to put 21 new nuclear units with a combined generating capacity of 15,700MWe into operation by 2031, including ten indigenously designed PHWRs, while Bangladesh develops nuclear power with IAEA assistance. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Nuclear Power Dispute strains electricity market reform as Germany resists state aid for French reactors, while Eon urges cooperation to meet the energy transition, low-carbon goals, renewables integration, and cross-border power trade.

Key Points

A policy standoff between Germany and France over nuclear energy's role, state aid, and electricity market reforms.

✅ Germany opposes state aid for existing French nuclear plants.

✅ Eon CEO urges compromise to advance market reform and decarbonization.

✅ Cross-border trade shows reliance on French nuclear amid renewables push.

Germany should stop trying to impose its views on nuclear power on the rest of the EU, the head of one of Europe’s largest utilities has warned, as he stressed its importance in the region’s clean energy transition.

Leonhard Birnbaum, chief executive of German energy provider Eon, said Berlin should accept differences of opinion as he signalled his desire for a compromise with France to break a deadlock amid a nuclear power dispute over energy reforms.

Germany this year shut down its final three nuclear power plants as it followed through on a long-held promise to drop the use of the energy source, effectively turning its back on nuclear for now, while France has made it a priority to modernise its nuclear power plants.

The differences are delaying reforms to the region’s electricity market and legislation designed to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets.

One sticking point is Germany’s refusal to back French moves to allow governments to provide state aid to existing power plants, which could enable Paris to support the French nuclear fleet.

The Eon chief, whose company has 48mn customers across Europe, said it would be “better for everyone” if the two countries could approach the dispute with the mindset that “everyone does their part”, even as Germany has at times weighed a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout in recent debates.

“Neither the French will be able to persuade us to use nuclear power, nor we will be able to persuade them not to. That’s why I think we should take a different approach to the discussion,” he added.

Birnbaum said Germany “would do well to be a bit cautious about trying to impose our way on everyone else”. This approach was unlikely to be “crowned with success”.

“The better solution will not come from opposing each other, but from working together.”

Birnbaum made the comments at a press conference announcing Eon’s second-quarter results.

The company raised its profit outlook, predicting adjusted net income of €2.7bn to €2.9bn, and promised to reduce bills for customers as it hailed “diminishing headwinds” following the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.

Birnbaum, whose company owned one of the three German nuclear plants shut down this year, pointed out that French nuclear energy was helping the conversion to a system of renewable energy in Germany at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power just when it needs energy.

This was a reference to Europe’s shared power market that allows countries to buy and sell electricity from one another. 

Germany has been a net importer of French electricity since shutting down its own nuclear plants, which last month prompted the French energy minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher to accuse Berlin of hypocrisy. 

“It’s a contradiction to massively import French nuclear energy while rejecting every piece of EU legislation that recognises the value of nuclear as a low-carbon energy source,” Pannier-Runacher told the German business daily Handelsblatt.

She also criticised Berlin’s drive to use new gas-fired power plants as a “bridge” to its target of being carbon neutral by 2045, even as some German officials contend that nuclear won’t solve the gas issue in the near term, arguing that it created a “credibility problem” for Germany: “Gas is a fossil fuel.”

Berlin officials responded by pointing out that Germany was a net exporter of electricity to France over the winter when its nuclear power stations were struggling to produce because of maintenance problems. 

They added that the country only imported French power because it was cheaper, not because their country was suffering shortages.

Berlin argues that renewable energy is cleaner and safer than nuclear, despite renewable rollout challenges linked to cheap Russian gas and grid expansion, and accuses France of seeking to protect the interests of its nuclear industry.

In Paris, officials see Germany’s resistance to nuclear energy as wrong-headed given the need to fight climate change effectively, and worry it is an attempt to undercut a key aspect of French industrial competitiveness.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Nation Rise Wind Farm Ruling overturns Ontario cancellation, as Superior Court finds the minister's decision unreasonable; EDP Renewables restarts 100-megawatt project near Cornwall, citing jobs, clean energy, and procedural fairness over bat habitat concerns.

Key Points

Ontario court quashes cancellation, letting EDP Renewables finish 100 MW Nation Rise project and resume clean energy.

✅ Judges call minister's decision unreasonable, unfair

✅ EDP Renewables to restart construction near Cornwall

✅ 100 MW, 29 turbines; costs awarded, appeal considered

Construction of a wind farm in eastern Ontario, as wind power makes gains nationwide, will move ahead after a court quashed a provincial government decision to cancel the project.

In a ruling released Wednesday, a panel of Ontario Superior Court judges said the province's decision to scrap the Nation Rise Wind Farm in December 2019 did not meet the proper requirements.

At the time, Environment Minister Jeff Yurek revoked the approvals of the project near Cornwall, Ont., citing the risk to three bat species.

That decision came despite a ruling from the province's Environmental Review Tribunal that determined the risk the project posed to the bat population was negligible.

The judges said the minister's decision was "unreasonable" and "procedurally unfair."

"The decision does not meet requirements of transparency, justification, and intelligibility, as the Minister has failed to adequately explain his decision," the judges wrote in their decision.

The company behind the project, EDP Renewables, said the 29-turbine wind farm was almost complete when its approval was revoked in December, even as Alberta saw TransAlta scrap a wind farm in a separate development.

The company said Thursday it plans to restart construction on the 100-megawatt wind farm.

"EDPR is eager to recommence construction of the Nation Rise Wind Farm, which will bring much-needed jobs and investment to the community," the company said in a statement. "This delay has resulted in unnecessary expenditures to-date, at a time when governments and businesses should be focused on reducing costs and restarting the economy."

A spokesman for Yurek said the government is disappointed with the outcome of the case but did not comment on a possible appeal.

"At this time, we are reviewing the decision and are carefully considering our next steps," Andrew Buttigieg said in a statement.

NDP climate change critic Peter Tabuns said the court decision is an embarrassment for the minister and the government. He urged the government not to pursue an appeal.

Yurek "was found to have ignored the evidence and the facts," he said. "They didn't just lose, their case collapsed. They had nothing to stand on. Taking this to appeal would be a complete and total waste of money."

Green party Leader Mike Schreiner said the ruling proves the government was acting based on ideology over evidence when it revoked the project's approval.

"As we shift towards a post-COVID recovery, we need the Ford government to give up the irrational crusade against affordable and reliable clean energy," Schreiner said in a statement.

Last year, the NDP revealed the province had spent $231 million to cancel more than 750 renewable energy contracts, a move Ford said he was proud of, shortly after winning the 2018 election.

The Progressive Conservatives have blamed the previous Liberal government, as leadership candidates debate how to fix power, for signing the bad energy deals while the province had an oversupply of electricity.

The Ford government, amid a new stance on wind power, has also said that by cancelling the contracts it would ultimately save ratepayers $790 million -- a figure industry officials have disputed.

At the time of the wind farm cancellation, the government also said it would introduce legislation that would protect consumers from any costs incurred, though a developer warned cancellations could exceed $100M at the time.

It has since acknowledged it will have to pay some companies to cancel the deals and set aside $231 million to reach agreements with those firms, and more recently has moved to reintroduce renewable projects in some cases.

On Wednesday, the judges awarded Nation Rise $126,500 in costs, which the government will have to pay.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News