GreenVolts Signs Utility Deal

SaskPower 2019-20 Annual Report highlights $205M net income, grid capacity upgrades, emissions reduction progress, Chinook Power Station natural gas baseload, and wind and solar renewable energy to support Saskatchewan's Growth Plan and Prairie Resilience.

Key Points

SaskPower's 2019-20 results: $205M income, grid upgrades, emissions cuts, and new gas baseload with wind and solar.

✅ $205M net income, up $8M year-over-year

✅ Chinook Power Station adds stable natural gas baseload

✅ Increased grid capacity enables more wind and solar

SaskPower presented its annual report on Monday, with a net income of $205 million in 2019-20, even as Manitoba Hydro's financial pressures highlight regional market dynamics.

This figure shows an increase of $8 million from 2018-19, despite record provincial power demand that tested the grid.

“Reliable, sustainable and cost-effective electricity is crucial to achieving the economic goals laid out in the Government of Saskatchewan’s Growth Plan and the emissions reductions targets outlined in Prairie Resilience, our made-in-Saskatchewan climate change strategy,” Minister Responsible for SaskPower Dustin Duncan said.

In the last year, SaskPower has repaired and upgraded old infrastructure, invested in growth projects and increased grid capacity, including plans to buy more electricity from Manitoba Hydro to support reliability and benefiting from new turbine investments across the region.

The utility is also exploring procurement partnerships, including a plan to purchase power from Flying Dust First Nation to diversify supply.

“During the past year, we continued to move toward our target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 40 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, as part of efforts to double renewable electricity by 2030 across Saskatchewan,” SaskPower President and CEO Mike Marsh said. “The newly commissioned natural gas-fired Chinook Power Station will provide a stable source of baseload power while enabling the ongoing addition of intermittent renewable generation capacity, and exploring geothermal power alongside wind and solar generation.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Quebec Hydropower Export Retaliation examines using electricity exports to counter U.S. tariffs amid Canada-U.S. trade tensions, weighing clean energy supply, grid reliability, energy security, legal risks, and long-term market impacts.

Key Points

Using Quebec electricity exports as leverage against U.S. tariffs, and its economic, legal, and diplomatic consequences.

✅ Revenue loss for Quebec and higher costs for U.S. consumers

✅ Risk of legal disputes under trade and energy agreements

✅ Long-term erosion of market share and grid cooperation

As trade tensions between Canada and the United States continue to escalate, with electricity exports at risk according to recent reporting, discussions have intensified around potential Canadian responses to the imposition of U.S. tariffs. One of the proposals gaining attention is the idea of reducing or even halting the export of energy from Quebec to the U.S. This measure has been suggested by some as a potential countermeasure to retaliate against the tariffs. However, experts and industry leaders are urging caution, emphasizing that the consequences of such a decision could have significant economic and diplomatic repercussions for both Canada and the United States.

Quebec plays a critical role in energy trade, particularly in supplying hydroelectric power to the United States, especially to the northeastern states, including New York where tariffs may spike energy prices according to analysts, strengthening the case for stable cross-border flows. This energy trade is deeply embedded in the economic fabric of both regions. For Quebec, the export of hydroelectric power represents a crucial source of revenue, while for the U.S., it provides access to a steady and reliable supply of clean, renewable energy. This mutually beneficial relationship has been a cornerstone of trade between the two countries, promoting economic stability and environmental sustainability.

In the wake of recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, some policymakers have considered using energy exports as leverage, echoing threats to cut U.S. electricity exports in earlier disputes, to retaliate against what is viewed as an unfair trade practice. The idea is to reduce or stop the flow of electricity to the U.S. as a way to strike back at the tariffs and potentially force a change in U.S. policy. On the surface, this approach may appear to offer a viable means of exerting pressure. However, experts warn that such a move would be fraught with significant risks, both economically and diplomatically.

First and foremost, Quebec's economy is heavily reliant on revenue from hydroelectric exports to the U.S. Any reduction in these energy sales could have serious consequences for the province's economic stability, potentially resulting in job losses and a decrease in investment. The hydroelectric power sector is a major contributor to Quebec's GDP, and recent events, including a tariff threat delaying a green energy bill in Quebec, illustrate how trade tensions can ripple through the policy landscape, while disrupting this source of income could harm the provincial economy.

Additionally, experts caution that reducing energy exports could have long-term ramifications on the energy relationship between Quebec and the northeastern U.S. These two regions have developed a strong and interconnected energy network over the years, and abruptly cutting off the flow of electricity could damage this vital partnership. Legal challenges could arise under existing trade agreements, and even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects among some stakeholders, the situation would grow more complex. Such a move could also undermine trust between the two parties, making future negotiations on energy and other trade issues more difficult.

Another potential consequence of halting energy exports is that U.S. states may seek alternative sources of energy, diminishing Quebec's market share in the long run. As the U.S. has a growing demand for clean energy, especially as it looks to transition away from fossil fuels, and looks to Canada for green power in several regions, cutting off Quebec’s electricity could prompt U.S. states to invest in other forms of energy, including renewables or even nuclear power. This could have a lasting effect on Quebec's position in the U.S. energy market, making it harder for the province to regain its footing.

Moreover, reducing or ceasing energy exports could further exacerbate trade tensions, leading to even greater economic instability. The U.S. could retaliate by imposing additional tariffs on Canadian goods or taking other measures that would negatively impact Canada's economy. This could create a cycle of escalating trade barriers that would hurt both countries and undermine the broader North American trade relationship.

While the concept of using energy exports as a retaliatory tool may seem appealing to some, the experts' advice is clear: the potential economic and diplomatic costs of such a strategy outweigh the short-term benefits. Quebec’s role as an energy supplier to the U.S. is crucial to its own economy, and maintaining a stable, reliable energy trade relationship is essential for both parties. Rather than escalating tensions further, it may be more prudent for Canada and the U.S. to seek diplomatic solutions that preserve trade relations and minimize harm to their economies.

While the idea of using Quebec’s energy exports as leverage in response to U.S. tariffs may appear attractive on the surface, and despite polls showing support for tariffs on energy and minerals among Canadians, it carries significant risks. Experts emphasize the importance of maintaining a stable energy export strategy to protect Quebec’s economy and preserve positive diplomatic relations with the U.S. Both countries have much to lose from further escalating trade tensions, and a more measured approach is likely to yield better outcomes in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Brazil ICMS Tax Cap limits state VAT on fuels, natural gas, electricity, communications, and transit, promising short-term price relief amid inflation, with federal compensation to states and potential legal challenges affecting investments and ANP auctions.

Key Points

A policy capping state VAT at 17-18 percent on fuels, electricity, and services to temper prices and inflation.

✅ Caps VAT to 17-18% on fuels, power, telecom, transit

✅ Short-term relief; medium-long term impact uncertain

✅ Federal compensation; potential court challenges, investment risk

Brazil’s congress approved a bill that limits the ICMS tax rate that state governments can charge on fuels, natural gas, electricity, communications, and public transportation. 

Local lawyers told BNamericas that the measure may reduce fuel and power prices in the short term, similar to Brazil power sector relief loans seen during the pandemic, but it is unlikely to produce any major effects in the medium and long term. 

In most states the ceiling was set at 17% or 18% and the federal government will pay compensation to the states for lost tax revenue until December 31, via reduced payments on debts that states owe the federal government.

The bill will become law once signed by President Jair Bolsonaro, who pushed strongly for the proposal with an eye on his struggling reelection campaign for the October presidential election. Double-digit inflation has turned into a major election issue and fuel and electricity prices have been among the main inflation drivers, as seen in EU energy-driven inflation across the bloc this year. Congress’ approval of the bill is seen by analysts as political victory for the Brazilian leader.

How much difference will it make?

Marcus Francisco, tax specialist and partner at Villemor Amaral Advogados, said that in the formation of fuel and electricity prices there are other factors, including high natural gas prices, that drive increases.

“In the case of fuels, if the barrel of oil [price] increases, automatically the final price for the consumer will go up. For electricity, on the other hand, there are several subsidies and policy choices such as Florida rejecting federal solar incentives that are part of the price and that can increase the rate [paid],” he said. 

There is also a possibility that some states will take the issue to the supreme court since ICMS is a key source of revenue for them, Francisco added.

Tiago Severini, a partner at law firm Vieira Rezende, said the comparison between the revenue impact and the effective price reduction, based on the estimates made by the states and the federal government, seems disproportionate, and, as seen in Europe, rolling back European electricity prices is often tougher than it appears. 

“In other words, a large tax collection impact is generated, which is quite unequal among the different states, for a not so strong price reduction,” he said.

“Due to the lack of clarity regarding the precision of the calculations involved, it’s difficult even to assess the adequacy of the offsets the federal government has been considering, and international cases such as France's new electricity pricing scheme illustrate how complex it can be to align fiscal offsets with regulatory constraints, to cover the cost it would have with the compensation for the states” Severini added.

The compensation ideas that are known so far include hiking other taxes, such as the social contribution on net profits (CSLL) that is paid by oil and gas firms focused on exploration and production.

“This can generate severe adverse effects, such as legal disputes, reduced investments in the country, and reduced attractiveness of the new auctions by [sector regulator] ANP, and costly interventions like the Texas electricity market bailout after extreme weather events,” Severini said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New York Climate Transition Costs highlight rising utility bills for ratepayers as the state pursues renewable energy, electrification, and a zero-emissions grid, with Inflation Reduction Act funding to offset consumer burdens while delivering health benefits.

Key Points

Ratepayer-funded costs to meet New York's renewable targets and zero-emissions grid, offset by federal incentives.

✅ $48B in projects funded by consumers over two decades

✅ Up to 10% of utility bills already paid by some upstate users

✅ Targets: 70% renewables by 2030; zero-emissions grid by 2040

A generational push to tackle climate change in New York that includes its Green New Deal is quickly becoming a pocketbook issue headed into 2024.

Some upstate New York electric customers are already paying 10 percent of their electricity bills to support the state’s effort to move off fossil fuels and into renewable energy. In the coming years, people across the state can expect to give up even bigger chunks of their income to the programs — $48 billion in projects is set to be funded by consumers over the next two decades.

The scenario is creating a headache for New York Democrats grappling with the practical and political risk of the transition.

It’s an early sign of the dangers Democrats across the country will face as they press forward with similar policies at the state and federal level. New Jersey, Maryland and California are also wrestling with the issue and, in some cases, are reconsidering their ambitious plans, including a 100% carbon-free mandate in California.

“This is bad politics. This is politics that are going to hurt all New Yorkers,” said state Sen. Mario Mattera, a Long Island Republican who has repeatedly questioned the costs of the state’s climate law and who will pay for it.

Democrats, Mattera said, have been unable to explain effectively the costs for the state’s goals. “We need to transition into renewable energy at a certain rate, a certain pace,” he said.

Proponents say the switch will ultimately lower energy bills by harnessing the sun and wind, result in significant health benefits and — critically — help stave off the most devastating climate change scenarios. And they hope new money to go green from the Inflation Reduction Act, celebrating its one-year anniversary, can limit costs to consumers.

New York has statutory mandates calling for 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and a fully “zero emissions” grid by 2040, among the most aggressive targets in the country, aligning with a broader path to net-zero electricity by mid-century. The grid needs to be greened, while demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050 — the same year when state law requires emissions to be cut by 85 percent from 1990 levels.

But some lawmakers in New York, particularly upstate Democrats, and similar moderates across the nation are worried about moving too quickly and sparking a backlash against higher costs, as debates over Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan illustrate. The issue is another threat to Democrats heading into the critical 2024 battleground House races in New York, which will be instrumental in determining control of Congress.

Even Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who is fond of saying that “we’re the last generation to be able to do anything” about climate change, last spring balked at the potential price tag of a policy to achieve New York’s climate targets, a concern echoed in debates over a fully renewable grid by 2030 elsewhere. And she’s not the only top member of her party to say so.

“If it’s all just going to be passed along to the ratepayers — at some point, there’s a breaking point, and we don’t want to lose public support for this agenda,” state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a Democrat, warned in an interview.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Coal Phase-Out signals a clean energy transition, replacing coal with natural gas and renewables, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, leveraging a carbon levy, and supporting workers in Alberta's evolving electricity market.

Key Points

Alberta Coal Phase-Out moves power from coal to lower-emission natural gas and renewables to reduce grid emissions.

✅ Last coal plant closed: Genesee Generating Station, Sept 30, 2023

✅ Shift to natural gas and renewables lowers emissions

✅ Carbon levy and incentives accelerated clean power build-out

The closure of the Genesee Generating Station on September 30, 2023, marked a significant milestone in Alberta's energy history, as the province moved to retire coal power by 2023 ahead of its 2030 provincial deadline. The Genesee, located near Calgary, was the province's last remaining coal-fired power plant. Its closure represents the culmination of a multi-year effort to transition Alberta's electricity sector away from coal and towards cleaner sources of energy.

For decades, coal was the backbone of Alberta's electricity grid. Coal-fired plants were reliable and relatively inexpensive to operate. However, coal also has a significant environmental impact. The burning of coal releases greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, a major contributor to climate change. Coal plants also produce air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which can cause respiratory problems and acid rain, and in some regions electricity is projected to get dirtier as gas use expands.

In recognition of these environmental concerns, the Alberta government began to develop plans to phase out coal-fired power generation in the early 2000s. The government implemented a number of policies to encourage the shift from coal to cleaner energy such as natural gas and renewable energy. These policies included providing financial incentives for the construction of new natural gas plants and renewable energy facilities, as well as imposing a carbon levy on coal-fired generation.

The phase-out of coal was also driven by economic factors. The cost of natural gas has declined significantly in recent years, making it a more competitive fuel source for electricity generation as producers switch to gas under evolving market conditions. Additionally, the Alberta government faced increasing pressure from the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The transition away from coal has not been without its challenges. Coal mining and coal-fired power generation have long been important parts of Alberta's economy. The closure of coal plants has resulted in job losses in the affected communities. The government has implemented programs to help workers transition to new jobs in the clean energy sector.

Despite these challenges, the closure of the Genesee Generating Station is a positive development for Alberta's environment and climate. Coal-fired power generation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta, and recent wind generation outpacing coal underscores the sector's transformation. The closure of the Genesee is expected to result in a significant reduction in emissions, helping Alberta to meet its climate change targets.

The transition away from coal also presents opportunities for Alberta. The province has vast natural gas resources, which can be used to generate electricity with lower emissions than coal. Alberta is also well-positioned to develop renewable energy sources, such as wind power and solar power. These renewable energy sources can help to further reduce emissions and create new jobs in the clean energy sector.

The closure of the Genesee Generating Station is a significant milestone in Alberta's energy history. It represents the end of an era for coal-fired power generation in the province, a shift mirrored by the UK's last coal station going offline earlier this year. However, it also marks the beginning of a new era for Alberta's energy sector. By transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, Alberta can reduce its environmental impact and create a more sustainable energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News