Atlantic City plans largest solar roof

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

NEIMA advances NRC regulatory modernization, creating a licensing framework for advanced reactors, improving uranium permitting, capping reactor fees, and mandating DOE planning for excess uranium, boosting transparency, accountability, and innovation across the US nuclear sector.

Key Points

NEIMA is a US law modernizing NRC rules and enabling advanced reactor licensing while reforming fees.

✅ Modernizes NRC licensing for advanced reactors

✅ Caps annual reactor fees and boosts transparency

✅ Streamlines uranium permitting; directs DOE plans

Bipartisan legislation modernising US nuclear regulation and supporting the establishment of a licensing framework for next-generation advanced reactors has been signed by US President Donald Trump, whose order boosting U.S. uranium and nuclear energy underscored the administration's focus on the sector.

The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernisation Act (NEIMA) became law on 14 January.

As well as directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to modify the licensing process for commercial advanced nuclear reactor facilities, the bill establishes new transparency and accountability measures to the regulator's budget and fee programmes, and caps fees for existing reactors. It also directs the NRC to look at ways of improving the efficiency of uranium licensing, including investigating the safety and feasibility of extending uranium recovery licences from ten to 20 years' duration, and directs the Department of Energy, which oversees nuclear cleanup and related projects, to issue at least every ten years a long-term plan detailing the management of its excess uranium inventories.

Maria Korsnick, president and CEO of the US Nuclear Energy Institute, described NEIMA as a "significant, positive step" toward the reform of the NRC's fee collection process. "This legislation establishes a more equitable and transparent funding structure which will benefit all operating reactors and future licensees," she said. "The bill also reaffirms Congress’s support for nuclear innovation by working to establish an efficient and stable regulatory structure that is prepared to license the advanced reactors of the future."

Marilyn Kray, president-elect of the American Nuclear Society, said the passage of the legislation was a "big win" for the nation and its nuclear community. "By reforming outdated laws, NRC will now be able to invest more freely in advanced nuclear R&D and licensing activities. This in turn will accelerate deployment of cutting-edge American nuclear systems and better prepare the next generation of nuclear engineers and technologists," she said.

The bill was introduced in 2017 by Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. It was approved by Congress on 21 December by 361 votes to 10, having been passed by the Senate the previous day, even as later Biden's climate law developments produced mixed results.

NEIMA is one of several bipartisan bills that support advanced nuclear innovation considered by the 115th US Congress, which ended on 2 January. These are: the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA); the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act; the Nuclear Utilisation of Keynote Energy Act; the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Act, a focus sharpened by the U.S. ban on Russian uranium in the fuel market; and legislation to expedite so-called part 810 approvals, which are needed for the export of technology, equipment and components. NEICA, which supports the deployment of advanced reactors and also directs the DOE to develop a reactor-based fast neutron source for the testing of advanced reactor fuels and materials, was signed into law in October.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Polycrystalline Tin Selenide Thermoelectrics enable waste heat recovery with ZT 3.1, matching single crystals while cutting costs, powering greener car engines, industrial furnaces, and thermoelectric generators via p-type and emerging n-type designs.

Key Points

Low-cost tin selenide devices that turn waste heat into power, achieving ZT 3.1 and enabling p-type and n-type modules.

✅ Oxygen removal prevents heat-leaking tin oxide grain skins.

✅ Polycrystalline ingots match single-crystal ZT 3.1 at lower cost.

✅ N-type tin selenide in development to pair with p-type.

So-called thermoelectric generators turn waste heat into electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions, providing what seems like a free lunch. But despite helping power the Mars rovers, the high cost of these devices has prevented their widespread use. Now, researchers have found a way to make cheap thermoelectrics that work just as well as the pricey kind. The work could pave the way for a new generation of greener car engines, industrial furnaces, and other energy-generating devices.

“This looks like a very smart way to realize high performance,” says Li-Dong Zhao, a materials scientist at Beihang University who was not involved with the work. He notes there are still a few more steps to take before these materials can become high-performing thermoelectric generators. However, he says, “I think this will be used in the not too far future.”

Thermoelectrics are semiconductor devices placed on a hot surface, like a gas-powered car engine or on heat-generating electronics using thin-film converters to capture waste heat. That gives them a hot side and a cool side, away from the hot surface. They work by using the heat to push electrical charges from one to the other, a process of turning thermal energy into electricity that depends on the temperature gradient. If a device allows the hot side to warm up the cool side, the electricity stops flowing. A device’s success at preventing this, as well as its ability to conduct electrons, feeds into a score known as the figure of merit, or ZT.

 Over the past 2 decades, researchers have produced thermoelectric materials with increasing ZTs, while related advances such as nighttime solar cells have broadened thermal-to-electric concepts. The record came in 2014 when Mercouri Kanatzidis, a materials scientist at Northwestern University, and his colleagues came up with a single crystal of tin selenide with a ZT of 3.1. Yet the material was difficult to make and too fragile to work with. “For practical applications, it’s a non-starter,” Kanatzidis says.

So, his team decided to make its thermoelectrics from readily available tin and selenium powders, an approach that, once processed, makes grains of polycrystalline tin selenide instead of the single crystals. The polycrystalline grains are cheap and can be heated and compressed into ingots that are 3 to 5 centimeters long, which can be made into devices. The polycrystalline ingots are also more robust, and Kanatzidis expected the boundaries between the individual grains to slow the passage of heat. But when his team tested the polycrystalline materials, the thermal conductivity shot up, dropping their ZT scores as low as 1.2.

In 2016, the Northwestern team discovered the source of the problem: an ultrathin skin of tin oxide was forming around individual grains of polycrystalline tin selenide before they were pressed into ingots. And that skin acted as an express lane for the heat to travel from grain to grain through the material. So, in their current study, Kanatzidis and his colleagues came up with a way to use heat to drive any oxygen away from the powdery precursors, leaving pristine polycrystalline tin selenide, whereas other devices can generate electricity from thin air using ambient moisture.

The result, which they report today in Nature Materials, was not only a thermal conductivity below that of single-crystal tin selenide but also a ZT of 3.1, a development that echoes nighttime renewable devices showing electricity from cold conditions. “This opens the door for new devices to be built from polycrystalline tin selenide pellets and their applications to be explored,” Kanatzidis says.

Getting through that door will still take some time. The polycrystalline tin selenide the team makes is spiked with sodium atoms, creating what is known as a “p-type” material that conducts positive charges. To make working devices, researchers also need an “n-type” version to conduct negative charges.

Zhao’s team recently reported making an n-type single-crystal tin selenide by spiking it with bromine atoms. And Kanatzidis says his team is now working on making an n-type polycrystalline version. Once n-type and p-type tin selenide devices are paired, researchers should have a clear path to making a new generation of ultra-efficient thermoelectric generators. Those could be installed everywhere from automobile exhaust pipes to water heaters and industrial furnaces to scavenge energy from some of the 65% of fossil fuel energy that winds up as waste heat. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Electricity Imports shape CleanBC claims as Powerex trades cross-border electricity, blending hydro with coal and gas supplies, affecting emissions, grid carbon intensity, and how electric vehicles and households assess "clean" power.

Key Points

Powerex buys power for BC Hydro, mixing hydro with coal and gas, shifting emissions and affecting CleanBC targets.

✅ Powerex trades optimize price, not carbon intensity

✅ Imports can include coal- and gas-fired generation

✅ Emissions affect EV and CleanBC decarbonization claims

British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car. 

That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, amid indications that residents are split on going nuclear according to a survey, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.

“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.” 

Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C. 

Here’s why. 

BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low. 

In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures and the commissioning of two new generating stations in B.C.) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.

“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC. 

“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas. 

Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)

Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy amid debate over the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year. 

So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.   

Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.  

In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle. 

These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.

Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.

BC Electric Vehicles Announcement Horgan Heyman Mungall Weaver
In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry, noting that electrification has prompted a first call for power in 15 years from BC Hydro.

Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.

“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”

Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex
These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws. 

Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly. 

According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.  

“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. 

Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.

‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power
Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement. 

But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.” 

Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where generators are shifting to gas and 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.

“It really is impossible to make that determination.” 

Wyoming Gilette coal pits NASA
The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory

Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta. 

But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources. 

In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator. 

Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C. 

California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C. 

And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year. 

By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million,  Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.

Clean electrons or dirty electrons?
Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand. 

Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes. 

“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”

Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.

Elsewhere in Canada, analysts warn that Ontario's electricity could get dirtier as policies change, raising similar concerns.

“As a consumer you never know whether you’re getting a clean electron or a dirty electron. You’re just getting an electron.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Oil Recession Outlook analyzes the Russia-Saudi price war, OPEC discord, COVID-19 demand shock, WTI and WCS collapse, Alberta oilsands exposure, U.S. shale stress, and GDP risks from blockades and fiscal responses.

Key Points

An outlook on how the oil price war and COVID-19 demand shock could tip Canada into recession and strain producers.

✅ WTI and WCS prices plunge on OPEC-Russia discord

✅ Alberta oilsands face break-even pressure near 30 USD WTI

✅ RBC flags global recession; GDP hit from blockades, virus

A war between Russia and Saudi Arabia for market share for oil may have been triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic in China, but the oil price crash contagion that it will spread could have impacts that last longer than the virus.

The prospects for Canada are not good.

Plunging oil prices, reduced economic activity from virus containment, and the fallout from weeks of railway blockades over the Coastal GasLink pipeline all add up to “a one-two-three punch that I think is almost inevitably going to put Canada in a position where its growth has to be negative,” said Dan McTeague, a former Liberal MP and current president of Canadians for Affordable Energy. The situation “certainly has the makings” of a recession, said Ken Peacock, chief economist for the Business Council of British Columbia.

“At a minimum, it’s going to be very disruptive and we’re going to have maybe one negative quarter,” Peacock said. “Whether there’s a second one, where it gets labeled a recession, is a different question. But it’s going to generate some turmoil and challenges over the next two quarters – there’s no doubt about that.”

RBC Economics on March 13 announced it now predicts a global recession and cut its growth projections for Canada's economy in 2020 by half a per cent.

Oil price futures plunged 30% last week, dragging stock markets and currencies, including the Canadian dollar, down with them, even as a deep freeze strained U.S. energy systems. That drop came on top of a 17% decline in February, due to falling demand for oil due to the virus.

The latest price plunge – the worst since the 1991 Gulf War – was the result of Russia and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), led by Saudi Arabia, failing to agree on oil production cuts.

The COVID-19 outbreak in China – the world’s second-largest oil consumer – had resulted in a dramatic drop in oil demand in that country, and a sudden glut of oil, with the U.S. energy crisis affecting electricity, gas and EV markets.

OPEC has historically been able to moderate global oil prices by controlling output. But when Russia refused to co-operate with OPEC and agree to production cuts, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned company, Aramco, announced it plans to boost its oil output from 9.7 million barrels per day (bpd) to 12.3 million bpd in April.

In response to that announcement, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices dropped 18% to below US$34 per barrel while the Canadian Crude Index fell 24% to US$21. Western Canadian Select dropped 39% to US$15.73.

The effect on Alberta oilsands producers was severe and immediate. Cenovus Energy Inc. (TSX:CVE) saw roughly $2 billion in market cap erased on March 9, when its stock dropped by 52%, which came on top of a 12% drop March 6.

The company responded the very next day by announcing it would cut spending by 32% in 2020, suspend its oil-by-rail program and defer expansion projects.

MEG Energy Corp. (TSX:MEG), which suffered a 56% share price drop on March 9, also announced a 20% reduction in its 2020 capital spending plan.

Peter Tertzakian, chief economist for ARC Energy Research Institute, wrote last week that Russia’s plan is to try to hurt U.S. shale oil producers, who have more than doubled U.S. oil production over the past decade.

Anas Alhajji, a global oil analyst, expects that plan could work. Even before the oil price shock, he had predicted the great shale boom in the U.S. was coming to an end.

“Shale production will decline, and the myth of ‘explosive growth’ will end,” he told Business in Vancouver. “The impact is global and Canadian producers might suffer even more if the oil that Saudi Arabia sends to the U.S. is medium and heavy. This might last longer than what people think.”

The question for Alberta is how Canadian producers can continue to operate through a period of cheap oil. Alberta producers do not compete on the global market. They serve a niche market of U.S. heavy oil refiners, and Biden-era policy is seen as potentially more favourable for Canada’s energy sector than alternatives.

“On the positive side, the industry is battle-hardened,” Tertzakian wrote. “Over the past five years, innovative companies have already learned to endure some of the lowest prices in the world.”

But he added that they need WTI prices of US$30 per barrel just to break even.

“But that’s an average break-even threshold for an industry with a wide variation in costs. That means at that level about half the companies can’t pay their bills and half are treading water.”

Just prior to the oil price plunge, the International Energy Agency (IEA) updated its 2020 forecast for global oil consumption from an 825,000 bpd increase in oil consumption to a 90,000 bpd decrease, due to the COVID-19 virus and consequent economic contraction and reduction in travel.

The IEA predicts global oil demand won’t return to “normal” until the second half of 2020. But even if demand does return to pre-virus levels, that doesn’t mean oil prices will – not if Saudi Arabia can sustain increased oil production at low prices, and evolving clean grid priorities could influence the trajectory too.

The oil plunge was greeted in Alberta with alarm. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney warned Alberta is in “uncharted territory” as consumers are urged to lock in rates and said his government might have to review its balanced budget and resort to emergency deficit spending.

While British Columbians – who pay some of the highest gasoline prices in North America – will enjoy lower gasoline prices at a time when prices are usually starting a seasonal spike, B.C.’s economy could feel knock-on effects from a recession in Alberta.

“We sell a lot of inputs, do a lot of trade with Alberta, so it’s important for B.C., Alberta’s economic health,” Peacock said, “and recent tensions over electricity purchase talks underscore that.”

Last week, the Trudeau government announced $1 billion in emergency funding to cope with the virus and waived a one-week waiting period for unemployment insurance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News