AECL provides update on NRU activities

U.S.-Canada Energy and Minerals Partnership strengthens energy security, critical minerals supply chains, and climate objectives with clean oil and gas, EV batteries, methane reductions, cross-border grid reliability, and allied trade, countering Russia and China dependencies.

Key Points

A North American alliance to secure energy, refine critical minerals, cut emissions, and fortify supply chains.

✅ Integrates oil, gas, and electricity trade for reliability

✅ Builds EV battery and critical minerals processing capacity

✅ Reduces methane, diversifies away from Russia and China

Today, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivered the following remarks during a full committee hearing to examine ways to strengthen the energy and mineral partnership between the U.S. and Canada to address energy security and climate objectives.

The hearing also featured testimony from the Honorable Jason Kenney (Premier, Alberta, Canada), the Honorable Nathalie Camden (Associate Deputy Minister of Mines, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resource, Québec, Canada), the Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister, Natural Resources Canada) and Mr. Francis Bradley (President and CEO, Electricity Canada). Click here to read their testimony.

Chairman Manchin’s remarks can be viewed as prepared here or read below:

Today we’re welcoming our friends from the North, from Canada, to continue this committee’s very important conversation about how we pursue two critical goals – ensuring energy security and addressing climate change.

These two goals aren’t mutually exclusive, and it’s imperative that we address both.

We all agree that Putin has used Russia’s oil and gas resources as a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the Ukrainian people and on Europe.

And other energy-rich autocracies are taking note. We’d be fools to think Xi Jinping won’t consider using a similar playbook, leveraging China’s control over global critical minerals supply chains.

But Putin’s aggression is bringing the free world closer together, setting the stage for a new alliance around energy, minerals, and climate.
Building this alliance should start here in North America. And that’s why I’m excited to hear today about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership between the U.S. and Canada.

I recently had the privilege of being hosted in Alberta by Premier Kenney, where I spent two days getting a better understanding of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnership through meetings with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the federal government, and tribal and industry partners.

Canadians and Americans share a deep history and are natural partners, sharing the longest land border on the planet.

Our people fought side-by-side in two world wars. In fact, some of the uranium used by the Manhattan Project and broader nuclear innovation was mined in Canada’s Northwest Territories and refined in Ontario.

We have cultivated a strong manufacturing partnership, particularly in the automotive industry, with Canada today being our biggest export market for vehicles. Cars assembled in Canada contain, on average, more than 50% of U.S. value and parts.

Today we also trade over 58 terawatt hours of electricity, including green power from Canada across the border, 2.4 billion barrels of petroleum products, and 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year.

In fact, energy alone represents $120 billion of the annual trade between our countries. Across all sectors the U.S. and Canada trade more than $2 billion per day.
There is no better symbol of our energy relationship than our interconnected power grid and evolving clean grids that are seamless and integral for the reliable and affordable electricity citizens and industries in both our countries depend on.

And we’re here for each other during times of need. Electricity workers from both the U.S. and Canada regularly cross the border after extreme weather events to help get the power back on.

Canada has ramped up oil exports to the U.S. to offset Russian crude after members of our committee led legislation to cut off the energy purchases fueling Putin’s war machine.

Canada is also a leading supplier of uranium and critical minerals to the U.S., including those used in advanced batteries—such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
The U.S-Canada energy partnership is strong, but also not without its challenges, including tariff threats that affect projects on both sides. I’ve not been shy in expressing my frustration that the Biden administration cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline.

In light of Putin’s war in Ukraine and the global energy price surge, I think a lot of us wish that project had moved forward.

But to be clear, I’m not holding this hearing to re-litigate the past. We are here to advance a stronger and cleaner U.S.-Canada energy partnership for the future.
Our allies and trading partners in Europe are begging for North American oil and gas to offset their reliance on Russia.

There is no reason whatsoever we shouldn’t be able to fill that void, and do it cleaner than the alternatives.

That’s because American oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced in Russia – and certainly in Iran and Venezuela. We can do better, and learn from our Canadian neighbors.

On average, Canada produces oil with 37% lower methane emissions than the U.S., and the Canadian federal government has set even more aggressive methane reduction targets.

That’s what I mean by climate and security not being mutually exclusive – replacing Russian product has the added benefit of reducing the emissions profile of the energy Europe needs today.

According to the International Energy Agency, stationary and electric vehicle batteries will account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean energy technologies over the next twenty years.

Unfortunately, China controls 80% of the world’s battery material processing, 60% of the world’s cathode production, 80% of the world’s anode production, and 75% of the world’s lithium ion battery cell production. They’ve cornered the market.

I also strongly believe we need to be taking national energy security into account as we invest in climate solutions.

It makes no sense whatsoever for us to so heavily invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution when that means increasing our reliance on China, because right now we’re not simultaneously increasing our mining, processing, and recycling capacity at the same rate in the United States.

The Canadians are ahead of us on critical minerals refining and processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they’re able to responsibly permit these activities in timelines that blow ours out of the water.

I’m sure our Canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me be clear, the United States also needs to contribute our part to a North American minerals alliance.

So I’m interested in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw minerals to move across our borders for processing and manufacturing in both of our countries, and how B.C. critical minerals decisions may affect that.

I believe there is much we can collaborate on with Canada to create a powerful North American critical minerals supply chain instead of increasing China’s geopolitical leverage.

During this time when the U.S., Canada, and our allies and friends are threatened both by dictators weaponizing energy and by intense politicization over climate issues, we must work together to chart a responsible path forward that will ensure security and unlock prosperity for our nations.

We are the superpower of the world, and blessed with abundant energy and minerals resources. We cannot just sit back and let other countries fill the void and find ourselves in a more dire situation in the years ahead.

We must be leaning into the responsible production of all the energy sources we’re going to need, and strengthening strategic partnerships – building a North American Energy Alliance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Electricity Market Reform CFDs seek stable prices via contracts for difference, balancing renewables and nuclear, shielding consumers, and boosting competitiveness as France and Germany clash over scope, grid expansion, and hydrogen production.

Key Points

EU framework using contracts for difference to stabilize power prices, support renewables and nuclear, and protect users.

✅ Guarantees strike prices for new low-carbon generation

✅ Balances consumer protection with industrial competitiveness

✅ Disputed scope: nuclear inclusion, grids, hydrogen eligibility

Despite record temperatures this October, Europe is slowly shifting towards winter - its second since the Ukraine war started and prompted Russia to cut gas supplies to the continent amid an energy crisis that has reshaped policy.

After prices surged last winter, when gas and electricity bills “nearly doubled in all EU capitals”, the EU decided to take emergency measures to limit prices.

In March, the European Commission proposed a reform to revamp the electricity market “to boost renewables, better protect consumers and enhance industrial competitiveness”.

However, France and Germany are struggling to find a compromise as rolling back prices is tougher than it appears and the clock is ticking as European energy ministers prepare to meet on 17 October in Luxembourg.

The controversy around CFDs
At the heart of the issue are contracts for difference (CFDs).

By providing a guaranteed price for electricity, CFDs aim to support investment in renewable energy projects.

France - having 56 nuclear reactors - is lobbying for nuclear energy to be included in the CFDs, but this has caught the withering eye of Germany.

Berlin suspects Paris of wanting an exception that would give its industry a competitive advantage and plead that it should only apply to new investments.

France wants ‘to regain control of the price’
The disagreement is at the heart of the bilateral talks in Hamburg, which started on Monday, between the French and German governments.

French President Emmanuel Macron promised “to regain control of the price of electricity, at the French and European level” and outlined a new pricing scheme in a speech at the end of September.

As gas electricity is much more expensive than nuclear electricity, France might be tempted to switch to a national system rather than a European one after a deal with EDF on prices to be more competitive economically.

However, France is "confident" that it will reach an agreement with Germany on electricity market reforms, Macron said on Friday.

Siding with France are other pro-nuclear countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, while Germany can count on the support of Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy amid opposition from nine EU countries to treating market reforms as a price fix.

But even if a last-minute agreement is reached, the two countries’ struggles over energy are creeping into all current European negotiations on the subject.

Germany wants a massive extension of electricity grids on the continent so that it can import energy; France is banking on energy sovereignty and national production.

France wants to be able to use nuclear energy to produce clean hydrogen, while Germany is reluctant, and so on.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Clean Electricity Regulations outline a 2035 net-zero grid target, driving decarbonization via wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, carbon capture, and efficiency, balancing reliability, affordability, and federal-provincial collaboration while phasing out coal and limiting fossil-fuel generation.

Key Points

Federal rules to cap CO2 from power plants and deliver a reliable, affordable net-zero grid by 2035.

✅ Applies to fossil-fired units; standards effective by Jan 1, 2035.

✅ Promotes wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, carbon capture, and efficiency.

✅ Balances reliability, affordability, and emissions cuts; ongoing consultation.

Saskatchewan’s premier said the federal government is “changing goalposts” with its proposed target for a net-zero electricity grid.

“We were looking at a net-zero plan in Saskatchewan and across Canada by the year 2050. That’s now been bumped to 2035. Well there are provinces that quite frankly aren’t going to achieve those types of targets by 2035,” Premier Scott Moe said Wednesday.

Ottawa proposed the Clean Electricity Regulations – formerly the Clean Electricity Standard – as part of its target for Canada to transition to net-zero emissions by 2050.

The regulations would help the country progress towards an updated proposed goal of a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.

“They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity,” Moe said.

The Government of Canada was seeking feedback from stakeholders on the plan’s regulatory framework document earlier this year, up until August 2022.

“The clean electricity standard is something that’s still being consulted on and we certainly heard the views of Saskatchewan – not just Saskatchewan, many other provinces – and I think that’s something that’s being reflected on,” Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s minister of natural resources, said during an event near Regina Wednesday.

“We also recognize that the federal government has a role to play in helping provinces to make the kinds of changes that would need to be made in order to actually achieve a clean grid,” Wilkinson added.

The information received during the consultation will help inform the development of the proposed regulations, which are expected to be released before the end of the year, according to the federal government.

NET-ZERO ELECTRICITY GRID
The federal government said its Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) is part of a suite of measures, as the country moves towards a broad “decarbonization” of the economy, with Alberta's clean electricity path illustrating provincial approaches as well.

Net-zero emissions would mean Canada’s economy would either emit no greenhouse gas emissions or offset its emissions.

The plan encourages energy efficiency, abatement and non-emitting generation technologies such as carbon capture and storage and electricity generation options such as solar, wind, geothermal, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and hydro, among others.

The government suggests consumer costs could be lowered by using some of these energy efficiency techniques, alongside demand management and a shift to lower-cost wind and solar power, echoing initiatives like the SaskPower 10% rebate aimed at affordability.

The CER focuses on three principles, each tied to affordability debates like the SaskPower rate hike in Saskatchewan:

 Maximize greenhouse gas reductions to achieve the 2035 target
 Ensure a reliable electrical grid to support Canadians and the economy
 Maintain electrical affordability

“Achieving a net-zero electricity supply is key to reaching Canada’s climate targets in two ways,” the government said in its proposed regulations.

“First, it will reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions from the production of electricity. Second, using clean electricity instead of fossil fuels in vehicles, heating and industry will reduce emissions from those sectors too.

The regulations would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generating units that combust any amount of fossil fuel, have a capacity above a small megawatt threshold and sell electricity onto a regulated electricity system.

New rules would also be implemented for the development of new electricity generation units firing fossil fuels in or after 2025 and existing units. All units would be subject to emission standards by Jan. 1, 2035, at the latest.

The federal government launched consultations on the proposed regulations in March 2022.

Canada also has a 2030 emissions reduction plan that works towards meeting its Paris Agreement target to reduce emissions by 40-45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. This plan includes regulations to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030.

COLLABORATION
The province recently introduced the Saskatchewan First Act, in an attempt to confirm its own jurisdiction and sovereignty when it comes to natural resources.

The act would amend Saskatchewan’s constitution to exert exclusive legislative jurisdiction under the Constitution of Canada.

The province is seeking jurisdiction over the exploration of non-renewable resources, the development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural and forestry resources, and the operation of sites and facilities for the generation and production of electrical energy.

While the federal government and Saskatchewan have come head-to-head publicly over several policy concerns in the past year, both sides remain open to collaborating on issues surrounding natural resources.

“We do have provincial jurisdiction in the development of these natural resources. We’d like to work collaboratively with the federal government on developing some of the most sustainable potash, uranium, agri-food products in the world,” Moe said.

Minister Wilkinson noted that while both the federal and provincial governments aim to respect each other’s jurisdiction, there is often some overlap, particularly in the case of environmental and economic policies, with Alberta's electricity sector changes underscoring those tensions as well.

“My view is we should endeavour to try to figure out ways that we can work together, and to ensure that we’re actually making progress for Saskatchewanians and for Canadians,” Wilkinson said.

“I think that Canadians expect us to try to figure out ways to work together, and where there are some disputes that can’t get resolved, ultimately the Supreme Court will decide on the issue of jurisdiction as they did in the case on the price on pollution.”

Moe said Saskatchewan is always open to working with the federal government, but not at the expense of its “provincial, constitutional autonomy.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Scotland Wind Energy October saw renewables supply the equivalent of 98 percent of electricity demand, as onshore wind outpaced National Grid needs, cutting emissions and powering households, per WWF Scotland and WeatherEnergy.

Key Points

A monthly update showing Scottish onshore wind met the equivalent of 98% of electricity demand in October.

✅ 98% of monthly electricity demand equivalent met by wind

✅ 16 days exceeded total national demand, per data

✅ WWF Scotland and WeatherEnergy cited; lower emissions

New figures publicized by WWF Scotland have revealed that wind energy generated the equivalent of 98% of the country’s electricity demand in October, or enough electricity to power millions of Scottish homes across the country.

Scotland has regularly been highlighted as a global wind energy leader, and over the last few years has repeatedly reported record-breaking months for wind generation. Now, it’s all very well and good to say that Scottish wind delivered 98% of the country’s electricity demand, but the specifics are a little different — hence why WWF Scotland always refers to it as wind providing “the equivalent of 98%” of Scotland’s electricity demand. That’s why it’s worth looking at the statistics provided by WWF Scotland, sourced from WeatherEnergy, part of the European EnergizAIR project:

• National Grid demand for the month – 1,850,512 MWh
• What % of this could have been provided by wind power across Scotland – 98%
• Best day – 23rd October 2018, generation was 105,900.94 MWh, powering 8.72m homes, 356% of households. Demand that day was 45,274.5MWh – wind generation was 234% of that.
• Worst day – 18th October 2018 when generation was 18,377.71MWh powering 1,512,568 homes, 62% of households. Demand that day was 73,628.5MWh – wind generation was 25%
• How many days generation was over 100% of households – 27
• How many days generation was over 100% of demand – 16

“What a month October proved to be, with wind powering on average 98 per cent of Scotland’s entire electricity demand for the month, at a time when wind became the UK’s main power source and exceeding our total demand for a staggering 16 out of 31 days,” said Dr Sam Gardner, acting director at WWF Scotland.

“These figures clearly show wind is working, it’s helping reduce our emissions and is the lowest cost form of new power generation. It’s also popular, with a recent survey also showing more and more people support turbines in rural areas. That’s why it’s essential that the UK Government unlocks market access for onshore wind at a time when we need to be scaling up electrification of heat and transport.”

Alex Wilcox Brooke, Weather Energy Project Manager at Severn Wye Energy Agency, added: “Octobers figures are a prime example of how reliable & consistent wind production can be, with production on 16 days outstripping national demand.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News