Biomass Plant to Tap Bull Market for Clean Energy

Ontario Electricity Rate Changes lower OEB Regulated Price Plan costs, adjust Time-of-Use winter hours and tiered thresholds, and modify the Ontario Electricity Rebate, affecting off-peak, mid-peak, and on-peak pricing for households and small businesses.

Key Points

OEB updates lowering RPP prices, shifting TOU hours, adjusting tiers, and modifying the Ontario Electricity Rebate.

✅ Winter TOU: Off-peak 7 p.m.-7 a.m.; weekends, holidays all day.

✅ Tiered pricing adds 400 kWh at lower rate for residential users.

✅ Ontario Electricity Rebate falls to 11.7% from 17% on Nov 1.

Electricity rates are about to change for consumers across Ontario.

On November 1, households and small businesses will see their electricity rates go down under the Ontario Energy Board's (OEB) Regulated Price Plan framework.

Customer's on the OEB's tiered pricing plan will also see their bills lowered on November 1, a shift from the 2021 increase when fixed pricing ended, as winter time-of-use hours and the seasonal change in the killowatt-hour threshold take effect.

Off-peak time-of-use hours will run from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. during weekdays, including the ultra-low overnight rates option for some customers, and all day on weekends and holidays. On-peak hours will be from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, and mid-peak hours from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays.

The winter-tier threshold provides residential customers with an extra 400 kilowatt-hours per month at a lower price during the colder weather, alongside the off-peak price freeze in effect.

The Ontario Electricity Rebate - a pre-tax credit that shows up at the bottom of electricity bills - will also see changes as a hydro rate change takes effect on November 1. Starting next month, the rebate will drop from 17 per cent to 11.7 per cent.

For a typical residential customer, the credit will decrease electricity bills by about $13.91 per month, according to the OEB.

Under the board's winter disconnection ban, electricity providers can't turn off a residential customer's power between November 15, 2022 and April 30, 2023 for failing to pay, and earlier pandemic relief included a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate for customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Power plant staff sequestration isolates essential operators on-site at plants and control centers, safeguarding critical infrastructure and grid reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic under DHS CISA guidance, with social distancing, offset shifts, and stockpiled supplies.

Key Points

A protocol isolating essential grid workers on-site to maintain operations at plants and control centers.

✅ Ensures grid reliability and continuity of critical infrastructure

✅ Implements social distancing, offset shifts, and isolation protocols

✅ Stockpiles food, beds, PPE, and sanitation for essential crews

The U.S. electric industry may ask essential staff to live on site at power plants and control centers to keep operations running if the coronavirus outbreak worsens, after a U.S. grid warning from the overseer, and has been stockpiling beds, blankets, and food for them, according to industry trade groups and electric cooperatives.

The contingency plans, if enacted, would mark an unprecedented step by power providers to keep their highly-skilled workers healthy as both private industry and governments scramble to minimize the impact of the global pandemic that has infected more than 227,000 people worldwide, with some utilities such as BC Hydro at Site C reporting COVID-19 updates as the situation evolves.

“The focus needs to be on things that keep the lights on and the gas flowing,” said Scott Aaronson, vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the nation’s biggest power industry association. He said that some “companies are already either sequestering a healthy group of their essential employees or are considering doing that and are identifying appropriate protocols to do that.”

Maria Korsnick, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said that some of the nation’s nearly 60 nuclear power plants are also “considering measures to isolate a core group to run the plant, stockpiling ready-to-eat meals and disposable tableware, laundry supplies and personal care items.”

Neither group identified specific companies, though nuclear worker concerns have been raised in some cases.

Electric power plants, oil and gas infrastructure and nuclear reactors are considered “critical infrastructure” by the federal government, and utilities continue to emphasize safety near downed lines even during emergencies. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is charged with coordinating plans to keep them operational during an emergency.

A DHS spokesperson said that its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had issued guidance to local governments and businesses on Thursday asking them to implement policies to protect their critical staff from the virus, even as an EPA telework policy emerged during the pandemic.

“When continuous remote work is not possible, businesses should enlist strategies to reduce the likelihood of spreading the disease,” the guidance stated. “This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, separating staff by off-setting shift hours or days and/or social distancing.”

Public health officials have urged the public to practice social distancing as a preventative measure to slow the spread of the virus, and as more people work from home, rising residential electricity use is being observed alongside daily routines. If workers who are deemed essential still leave, go to work and return to their homes, it puts the people they live with at risk of exposure. 

California has imposed a statewide shutdown, asking all citizens who do not work in those critical infrastructure industries not to leave their homes, a shift that may raise household electricity bills for consumers. Similar actions have been put in place in cities across America.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Income Graduated Fixed Charge aligns CPUC billing with utility fixed costs, lowers usage rates, supports electrification, and shifts California investor-owned utilities' electric bills by income, with CARE and Climate Credit offsets for low-income households.

Key Points

A CPUC proposal: an income-based monthly fixed fee with lower usage rates to align costs and aid low-income customers.

✅ Income-tiered fixed fees: $0-$42; CARE: $14-$22, by utility territory

✅ Usage rates drop 16%-22% to support electrification and cost-reflective billing

✅ Lowest-income save ~$10-$20; some higher earners pay ~$10+ more monthly

The Public Advocates Office (PAO) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed adding a monthly income-based fixed charge on electric utility bills based on income level.  

The rate change is designed to lower bills for the lowest-income residents while aligning billing more directly with utility costs. 

PAO’s recommendation for the Income Graduated Fixed Charge places fees between $22 and $42 per month in the three major investor-owned utilities’ territories, including an SDG&E minimum charge debate under way, for customers not enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program. As seen below, CARE customers would be charged between $14 per month and $22 a month, depending on income level and territory.

For households earning $50,000 or less per year, the fixed charge would be $0, but only if the California Climate Credit is applied to offset the fixed cost.

Meanwhile, usage-based electricity rates are lowered in the PAO proposal, part of major changes to electric bills statewide. Average rates would be reduced between 16% to 22% for the three major investor-owned utilities.

The lowest-income bracket of Californians is expected to save roughly $10 to $20 a month under the proposal, while middle-income customers may see costs rise by about $20 a month, even as lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in Sacramento.

“We anticipate the vast majority of low-income customers ($50,000 or less per year) will have their monthly bills decrease by $10 or more, and a small proportion of the highest income earners ($100,000+ per year) will see their monthly bills rise by $10 or more,” said the PAO.

The charges are an effort to help suppress ever-increasing electricity generation and transmission rates, which are among the highest in the country, with soaring electricity prices reported across California. Rates are expected to rise sharply as wildfire mitigation efforts are implemented by the utilities found at fault for their origin.

“We are very concerned. However, we do not see the increases stopping at this point,” Linda Serizawa, deputy director for energy, PAO, told pv magazine. “We think the pace and scale of the [rate] increases is growing faster than we would have anticipated for several years now.”

Consumer advocates and regulators face calls for action on surging electricity bills across the state.

The proposed changes are also meant to more directly couple billing with the fixed charges that utilities incur, as California considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid. For example, activities like power line maintenance, energy efficiency programs, and wildfire prevention are not expected to vary with usage, so these activities would be funded through a fixed charge.

Michael Campbell of the PAO’s customer programs team, and leader of the proposed program, likened paying for grid enhancements and other social programs with utility rate increases to “paying for food stamps by taxing food.” Instead, a fixed charge would cover these costs.

PAO said the move to lower rates for usage should help encourage electrification as California moves to replace heating and cooling, appliances, and gas combustion cars with electrified counterparts. In addition, lower rates mean the cost burden of running these devices is improved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Energy Transition Delays stem from grid bottlenecks, permitting red tape, solar tariff uncertainty, supply-chain shocks, and scarce affordable EVs, risking deeper fossil fuel lock-in despite climate targets for renewables, transmission expansion, and decarbonization.

Key Points

Delays driven by grid limits, permitting, and supply shocks that slow renewables, transmission, EVs, and decarbonization.

✅ Grid interconnection and transmission backlogs stall renewables

✅ Tariff probes and supply chains disrupt utility-scale solar

✅ Permitting, policy gaps, and EV costs sustain fossil fuel use

Big solar projects are facing major delays. Plans to adapt the grid to clean energy are confronting mountains of red tape. Affordable electric vehicles are in short supply.

The United States is struggling to squeeze opportunity out of an energy crisis that should have been a catalyst for cleaner, domestically produced power. After decades of putting the climate on the back burner, the country is finding itself unprepared to seize the moment and at risk of emerging from the crisis even more reliant on fossil fuels.

10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint
The problem is not entirely unique to the United States. Across the globe, climate leaders are warning that energy shortages including coal and nuclear disruptions prompted by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and high gas prices driven by inflation threaten to make the energy transition an afterthought — potentially thwarting efforts to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“The energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine has seen a perilous doubling down on fossil fuels by the major economies,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said at a conference in Vienna on Tuesday, according to prepared remarks. He warned governments and investors that a failure to immediately and more aggressively embrace clean energy could be disastrous for the planet.

U.S. climate envoy John F. Kerry suggested that nations are falling prey to a flawed logic that fossil fuels will help them weather this period of instability, undermining U.S. national security and climate goals, which has seen gas prices climb to a record-high national average of $5 per gallon. “You have this new revisionism suggesting that we have to be pumping oil like crazy, and we have to be moving into long-term [fossil fuel] infrastructure building,” he said at the Time100 Summit in New York this month. “We have to push back.”

Climate envoy John F. Kerry attends the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles on June 8. Kerry has criticized the tendency to turn toward fossil fuels in times of uncertainty. (Apu Gomes/AFP/Getty Images)
In the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China — the hurdles go beyond the supply-chain crisis and sanctions linked to the war in Ukraine. The country’s lofty goals for all carbon pollution to be gone from the electricity sector by 2035 and for half the cars sold to be electric by 2030 are jeopardized by years of neglect of the electrical grid, regulatory hurdles that have set projects back years, and failures by Congress and policymakers to plan ahead.
The challenges are further compounded by plans to build costly new infrastructure for drilling and exporting natural gas that will make it even harder to transition away from the fossil fuel.

“We are running into structural challenges preventing consumers and businesses from going cleaner, even at this time of high oil and gas prices,” said Paul Bledsoe, a climate adviser in the Clinton administration who now works on strategy at the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank. “It is a little alarming that even now, Congress is barely talking about clean energy.”

Consumers are eager for more wind and solar. Companies looking to go carbon-neutral are facing growing waitlists for access to green energy, and a Pew Research Center poll in late January found that two-thirds of Americans want the United States to prioritize alternative energy over fossil fuel production.

But lawmakers have balked for more than a decade at making most of the fundamental economic and policy changes such as a clean electricity standard that experts widely agree are crucial to an orderly and accelerated energy transition. The United States does not have a tax on carbon, nor a national cap-and-trade program that would reorient markets toward lowering emissions. The unraveling in Congress of President Biden’s $1.75 trillion Build Back Better plan has added to the head winds that green-energy developers face, even as climate law results remain mixed.

Vice President Harris tours electric school buses at Meridian High School in Falls Church, Va., on May 20. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
“There is literally nothing pushing this forward in the U.S. beyond the tax code and some state laws,” said Heather Zichal, a former White House climate adviser who is now the chief executive of the American Clean Power Association.

The effects of the U.S. government’s halting approach are being felt by solar-panel installers, who saw the number of projects in the most recent quarter fall to the lowest level since the pandemic began. There was 24 percent less solar installed in the first quarter of 2022 than in the same quarter of 2021.

The holdup largely stems from a Commerce Department investigation into alleged tariff-dodging by Chinese manufacturers. Faced with the potential for steep retroactive penalties, hundreds of industrial-scale solar projects were frozen in early April. Weak federal policies to encourage investment in solar manufacturing left American companies ill-equipped to fill the void.

“We shut down multiple projects and had to lay off dozens of people,” said George Hershman, chief executive of SOLV Energy, which specializes in large solar installations. SOLV, like dozens of other solar companies, is now scrambling to reassemble those projects after the administration announced a pause of the tariffs.

Meanwhile, adding clean electricity to the aging power grid has become an increasingly complicated undertaking, given the failure to plan for adequate transmission lines and long delays connecting viable wind and solar projects to the electricity network.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Western Canada Electric Grid could deliver interprovincial transmission, reliability, peak-load support, reserve sharing, and wind and solar integration, lowering costs versus new generation while respecting AESO markets and Crown utility structures.

Key Points

Interprovincial transmission to share reserves, boost reliability, integrate wind and solar, and cut peak capacity costs.

✅ Cuts reserve margins via diversity of peak loads

✅ Enables wind and solar balancing across provinces

✅ Saves ratepayers vs replacing retiring thermal plants

The 2017 Canadian Free Trade Agreement does not do much to encourage provinces to trade electric energy east and west. Would a western Canada electric grid help electricity consumers in the western provinces? Some Alberta officials feel that their electric utilities are investor owned and they perceive the Crown corporations of BC Hydro, SaskPower and Manitoba Hydro to be subsidized by their provincial governments, so an interprovincial electric energy trade would not be on a level playing field.

Because of the limited trade of electric energy between the western provinces, each utility maintains an excessive reserve of thermal and hydroelectric generation greater than their peak loads, to provide a reliable supply during peak load days as grids are increasingly exposed to harsh weather across Canada. This excess does not include variable wind and solar generation, which within a province can’t be guaranteed to be available when needed most.

This attitude must change. Transmission is cheaper than generation, and coordinated macrogrids can further improve reliability and cut costs. By constructing a substantial grid with low profile and aesthetically designed overhead transmission lines, the excess reserve of thermal and hydroelectric generation above the peak electric load can be reduced in each province over time. Detailed assessments will ensure each province retains its required reliability of electric supply.

As the provinces retire aging thermal and coal-fired generators, they only need to replace them to a much lower level, by just enough to meet their future electric loads and Canada's net-zero grid by 2050 goals. Some of the money not spent in replacing retired generation can be profitably invested in the transmission grid across the four western provinces.

But what about Alberta, which does not want to trade electric energy with the other western provinces? It can carry on as usual within the Alberta Electric System Operator’s (AESO) market and will save money by keeping the installed reserve of thermal and hydroelectric generation to a minimum. When Alberta experiences a peak electric load day and some generators are out of service due to unplanned maintenance, it can obtain the needed power from the interprovincial electric grid. None of the other three western provinces will peak at the same time, because of different weather and time zones, so they will have spare capacity to help Alberta over its peak. The peak load in a province only lasts for a few hours, so Alberta will get by with a little help from its friends if needed.

The grid will have no energy flowing on it for this purpose except to assist a province from time to time when it’s unable to meet its peak load. The grid may only carry load five per cent of the time in a year for this purpose. Under such circumstances, the empty grid can then be used for other profitable markets in electric energy. This includes more effective use of variable wind and solar energy, by enabling a province to better balance such intermittent power as well as allowing increased installation of it in every province. This is a challenge for AESO which the grid would substantially ease.

Natural Resources Canada promoted the “Regional Electricity Co-Operative and Strategic Infrastructure” initiative for completion this year and contracted through AESO, alongside an Atlantic grid study to explore regional improvements. This is a first step, but more is needed to achieve the full benefit of a western grid.

In 1970 a study was undertaken to electrically interconnect Britain with France, which was justified based on the ability to reduce reserve generation in both countries. Initially Britain rejected it, but France was partially supportive. In time, a substantial interconnection was built, and being a profitable venture, they are contemplating increasing the grid connections between them.

For the sake of the western consumers of electricity and to keep electricity rates from rising too quickly, as well as allowing productive expansion of wind and solar energy in places like British Columbia's clean energy shift efforts, an electric grid is essential across western Canada.

Dennis Woodford is president of Electranix Corporation in Winnipeg, which studies electric transmission problems, particularly involving renewable energy generators requiring firm connection to the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News