Aclara system chosen for Smart Meter AMI program

Barakah Unit 4 Cold Hydrostatic Testing validates reactor coolant system integrity at the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in Abu Dhabi, UAE, confirming safety, quality, and commissioning readiness under ENEC and KEPCO oversight.

Key Points

Pressure test of Unit 4's reactor coolant system, confirming integrity and safety for commissioning at Barakah.

✅ 25% above normal operating pressure verified.

✅ Welds, joints, and high-pressure components inspected.

✅ Supports safe, reliable, emissions-free baseload power.

The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) has successfully completed Cold Hydrostatic Testing (CHT) at Unit 4 of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, the Arab world’s first nuclear energy plant being built in the Al Dhafra region of Abu Dhabi, UAE. The testing incorporated the lessons learned from the previous three units and is a crucial step towards the completion of Unit 4, the final unit of the Barakah plant.

As a part of CHT, the pressure inside Unit 4’s systems was increased to 25 per cent above what will be the normal operating pressure, demonstrating, as seen across global nuclear projects, the quality and robust nature of the Unit’s construction. Prior to the commencement of CHT, Unit 4’s Nuclear Steam Supply Systems were flushed with demineralised water, and the Reactor Pressure Vessel Head and Reactor Coolant Pump Seals were installed. During the Cold Hydrostatic Testing, the welds, joints, pipes and components of the reactor coolant system and associated high-pressure systems were verified.

Mohammed Al Hammadi, Chief Executive Officer of ENEC said: “I am proud of the continued progress being made at Barakah despite the circumstances we have all faced in relation to COVID-19. The UAE leadership’s decisive and proactive response to the pandemic supported us in taking timely, safety-led actions to protect the health and safety of our workforce and our plant. These actions, alongside the efforts of our talented and dedicated workforce, have enabled the successful completion of CHT at Unit 4, which was completed in adherence to the highest standards of safety, quality, and security.

“With this accomplishment, we move another step closer to achieving our goal of supplying up to a quarter of our nation’s electricity needs through the national grid and powering its future growth with safe, reliable, and emissions-free electricity,” he added.

By the end of 2019, ENEC and Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), working with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) on the project, had successfully completed all major construction work including major concrete pouring, installation of the Turbine Generator, and the internal components of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) of Unit 4, which paved the way for the commencement of testing and commissioning.

The testing at Unit 4 represents a significant achievement in the development of the UAE Peaceful Nuclear Energy Program, following the successful completion of fuel assembly loading into Unit 1 in March 2020, confirming that the UAE has officially become a peaceful nuclear energy operating nation. Preparations are now in the final stages for the safe start-up of Unit 1, which subsequently reached 100% power ahead of commercial operations, in the coming months.

ENEC is currently in the final stages of construction of units 2, 3 and 4 of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, as China’s nuclear program continues its steady development globally. The overall construction of the four units is more than 94% complete. Unit 4 is more than 84 per cent, Unit 3 is more than 92 per cent and Unit 2 is more than 95 per cent. The four units at Barakah will generate up to 25 per cent of the UAE’s electricity demand by producing 5,600 MW of clean baseload electricity, as projects such as new reactors in Georgia take shape, and preventing the release of 21 million tons of carbon emissions each year – the equivalent of removing 3.2 million cars off the roads annually.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ERCOT Ancillary Services Clawback and VOLL Pricing summarize PUCT and IMM actions on load shed, real-time pricing adders, clawbacks, and settlement corrections after the 2021 winter storm in the Texas power grid market.

Key Points

Policies addressing clawbacks for unprovided AS and correcting VOLL-based price adders after load shed ended in ERCOT.

✅ PUCT ordered clawbacks for ancillary services not delivered.

✅ IMM urged price correction after firm load shed ceased.

✅ ERCOT's VOLL adder raised costs by $16B during 32 hours.

Potomac Economics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), filed a report with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) that certain payments were made by ERCOT for Ancillary Services (AS) that were not provided, even as ERCOT later issued a winter reliability RFP to procure capacity during subsequent seasons.

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

There were a number of instances during the operating days outlined above in which AS was not provided in real time because of forced outages or derations. For market participants that are not able to meet their AS responsibility, typically the ERCOT operator marks the short amount in the software. This causes the AS responsibility to be effectively removed and the day-ahead AS payment to be clawed back in settlement. However, the ERCOT operators did not complete this task during the winter event, echoing issues like the Ontario IESO phantom demand that cost customers millions, and therefore the "failure to provide" settlements were not invoked in real time.

Removing the operator intervention step and automating the "failure to provide" settlement was contemplated in NPRR947: Clarification to Ancillary Service Supply Responsibility Definition and Improvements to Determining and Charging for Ancillary Service Failed Quantities; however, the NPRR was withdrawn in August 2020 amid ongoing market reform discussions because of the system cost, some complexities related to AS trades, and the implementation of real-time co-optimization.

Invoking the "failure to provide" settlement for all AS that market participants failed to provide during the operating days outlined above will produce market outcomes and settlements consistent with underlying market principles. In this case, the principle is that market participants should not be paid for services that they do not provide, even as a separate ruling found power plants exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under Texas law, underscoring the distinction between obligations and settlements. Whether ERCOT marked the short amount in real-time or not should not affect the settlement of these ancillary services.

On March 3, 2021, the PUCT ordered (a related press release is here) that:

ERCOT shall claw back all payments for ancillary service that were made to an entity that did not provide its required ancillary service during real time on ERCOT operating days starting February 14, 2021 and ending on February 19,2021.

On March 4, 2021, the IMM filed another report and recommended that:

the [PUCT] direct ERCOT to correct the real-time prices from 0:00 February 18,2021, to 09:00 February 19, 2021, to remove the inappropriate pricing intervention that occurred during that time period.

The IMM approvingly noted the PUCT's February 15, 2021 order, which mandated that real-time energy prices reflect firm load shed by setting prices at the value of lost load (VOLL).1

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

This is essential in an energy-only market, like ERCOT's, where the Texas power grid faces recurring crisis risks, because it provides efficient economic signals to increase the electric generation needed to restore the load and service it reliably over the long term.

Conversely, it is equally important that prices not reflect VOLL when the system is not in shortage and load is being served, and experiences in capacity markets show auction payouts can fall sharply under different conditions. The Commission recognized this principle in its Order, expressly stating it is only ERCOT's out-of-market shedding firm load that is required to be reflected in prices. Unfortunately, ERCOT exceeded the mandate of the Commission by continuing to set process at VOLL long after it ceased the firm load shed.

ERCOT recalled the last of the firm load shed instructions at 23:55 on February 17, 2021. Therefore, in order to comply with the Commission Order, the pricing intervention that raised prices to VOLL should have ended immediately at that time. However, ERCOT continued to hold prices at VOLL by inflating the Real-Time On-Line Reliability Deployment Price Adder for an additional 32 hours through the morning of February 19. This decision resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT's market, prompting legislative bailout proposals in Austin, of which roughly $1.5 billion was uplifted to load-serving entities to provide make-whole payments to generators for energy that was not needed or produced.

However, at its March 5, 2021, open meeting (related discussion begins around minute 20), although the PUCT acknowledged the "good points" raised by the IMM, the PUCT was not willing to retrospectively adjust its real-time pricing for this period out of concerns that some related transactions (ICE futures and others) may have already settled and for unintended consequences of such retroactive adjustments.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario TOU Electricity Rate Relief offers 24/7 fixed off-peak pricing at 10.1¢/kWh, suspending time-of-use tiers to support residential customers, small businesses, and farms, coordinated by the Ontario Energy Board during COVID-19.

Key Points

A 45-day policy fixing TOU power at 10.1¢/kWh 24/7 off-peak to ease costs for residents, small businesses, and farms.

✅ Applies 24/7 off-peak 10.1¢/kWh to all TOU electricity customers.

✅ Automatic bill credit; no application or enrollment required.

✅ Covers residential, small businesses, and farms; OEB coordination.

To support Ontarians through the rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation, the Government of Ontario is providing immediate electricity rate relief for families, small businesses and farms paying time-of-use (TOU) rates.

For a 45-day period, the government is working to suspend time-of-use electricity rates, holding electricity prices to the off-peak rate of 10.1 cents-per-kilowatt-hour. This reduced price will be available 24 hours per day, seven days a week to all time-of-use customers, who make up the majority of electricity consumers in the province. By switching to a fixed off-peak rate, time-of-use customers will see rate reductions of over 50 per cent compared to on-peak rates now in effect.

To deliver savings as quickly and conveniently as possible, this discount will be applied automatically to electricity bills without the need for customers to fill out an application form.

"During this unprecedented time, we are providing much-needed relief to Ontarians, specifically helping those who are doing the right thing by staying home and small businesses that have closed or are seeing fewer customers," said Premier Doug Ford. "By adopting a fixed, 24/7 off-peak rate, aligned with ultra-low overnight pricing options, we are making things a little easier during these difficult times and putting more money in people's pockets for other important priorities and necessities."

The Government of Ontario issued an Emergency Order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act to apply the off-peak TOU electricity rate for residential, small businesses, and farm customers who currently pay TOU rates.

"Ontario is fortunate to have a strong electricity system we can rely on during these exceptional times, even as Ottawa's electricity consumption decreased during the pandemic, and our government is proud to provide additional relief to Ontarians who are doing their part to stay home," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

"We thank the Ontario Energy Board and our partners at local distribution companies across the province, including initiatives like Hydro One's Ultra-Low Overnight Price Plan that support customers, for taking quick action to make this change and provide immediate support for hardworking people of Ontario," said Bill Walker, Associate Minister of Energy.

Visit Ontario's website to learn more about how the province continues to protect Ontarians from COVID-19.

Quick Facts

• The Ontario Energy Board sets time-of-use electricity rates for residential and small business customers through the Regulated Price Plan, and provides stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial companies through separate programs.
• Time-of-use prices as of November, 2019 ― Off-Peak: 10.1₵/kWh, Mid-Peak: 14.4₵/kWh, On-Peak: 20.8₵/kWh
• Depending on billing cycles, some customers will see these changes on their next electricity bill. TOU customers whose billing cycle ended before their local distribution company implemented this change will receive the reduced rate as a credit on a future bill.
• The Ontario Electricity Rebate (OER) will continue to provide a 31.8 per cent rebate on the sub-total bill amount for all existing Regulated Price Plan (RPP) consumers.
• There are approximately five million residential consumers, farms and some small businesses billed using time-of-use (TOU) electricity prices under the RPP.
• The Ontario Energy Board has extended the winter ban on disconnections to July 31st.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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

Canadian Softwood Lumber Tariffs challenge British Columbia's forestry sector, strain U.S.-Canada trade, and risk redirecting critical minerals and energy resources, threatening North American supply chains, manufacturing, and energy security across integrated markets.

Key Points

Duties imposed by the U.S. on Canadian lumber, affecting BC forestry, trade flows, and North American energy security.

✅ U.S. duties strain BC forestry and cross-border supply chains

✅ Risks redirecting critical minerals and energy exports

✅ Tariff rollback could bolster North American energy security

British Columbia Premier David Eby has raised concerns that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber are prompting the province to redirect its critical minerals and energy resources, while B.C. challenges Alberta's electricity export restrictions domestically, away from the United States. In a recent interview, Eby emphasized the broader implications of these tariffs, suggesting they could undermine North American energy security and put electricity exports at risk across the border.

Since 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports, alleging that Canadian producers benefit from unfair subsidies. These duties have been a persistent source of tension between the two nations, coinciding with Canadian support for energy and mineral tariffs and significantly impacting British Columbia's forestry sector—a cornerstone of the province's economy.

Premier Eby highlighted that the financial strain imposed by these tariffs not only jeopardizes the Canadian forestry industry but also has unintended repercussions for the United States. He pointed out that the economic challenges faced by Canadian producers might lead them to seek alternative markets for their critical minerals and energy resources, as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects domestically, thereby reducing the supply to the U.S. British Columbia is endowed with an abundance of critical minerals essential for various industries, including technology and defense.

The potential redirection of these resources could have significant consequences for American industries that depend on a stable and affordable supply of critical minerals and energy. Eby suggested that the tariffs might incentivize Canadian producers to explore other international markets, even as experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid the tariff dispute, diminishing the availability of these vital resources to the U.S.

In light of these concerns, Premier Eby has advocated for a reassessment of the tariffs, urging a more cooperative approach between Canada and the United States. He contends that eliminating the tariffs would be mutually beneficial, aligning with views that Biden is better for Canada's energy sector and cross-border collaboration, ensuring a consistent supply of critical resources and fostering economic growth in both countries.

The issue of U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber remains complex and contentious, with far-reaching implications for trade relations and resource distribution between the two nations. As discussions continue, stakeholders on both sides of the border are closely monitoring the situation, noting that Ford has threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports amid trade tensions, recognizing the importance of collaboration in addressing shared economic and security challenges.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pickering Nuclear Plant Extension faces CNSC approval as Ontario Power Generation pursues license renewal before the June 30, 2023 deadline, amid a 2025 capacity crunch and grid reliability risks from decommissioning and overlapping nuclear outages.

Key Points

A plan to run Pickering past 2024 to Sept 2026, pending CNSC license renewal to address Ontario's 2025 capacity gap.

✅ CNSC approval needed for operation beyond Dec 31, 2024

✅ OPG aims to file by June 30, 2023 deadline

✅ Extension targets grid reliability through 2026

Ontario’s electricity generator has yet to file an official application to extend the life of the Pickering nuclear power plant, more than eight months after the Ford government announced a plan to continue operating Pickering for longer.

As the province faces an electricity shortfall in 2025 and beyond, the Ford government scrambled to prolong the Pickering power plant until September 2026, in order to guarantee a steady supply of power as the province experiences a rise in demand and shutdowns at other nuclear power plants.

The life extension may come down to the wire, however, as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the federal regulator tasked with approving or denying the extension, tells Global News the province has yet to file key paperwork.

The information is required for the application, including materials related to the proposed Pickering B refurbishment, and the government now has a month before the deadline runs out.

“The Commission requires that Ontario Power Generation submit specific information by June 30, 2023, if it intends to operate the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station beyond December 31, 2024,” the CNSC told Global News in a statement. “The Commission Registry has not yet received an application from Ontario Power Generation.”

If Ontario doesn’t receive the green light, the power plant which currently is responsible for 14 per cent of the province’s energy grid will be decommissioned in 2025, leaving the province with a significant electricity supply gap if replacement sources are not secured.

For its part, the Ford government doesn’t seem concerned about the impending timeline, even though the station was slated to close as planned, suggesting the Crown corporation responsible for the application will get it in on time.

“OPG is on track to submit their application before the end of June and has already started to submit supporting materials as part of the regulatory process toward clean power goals,” a spokesperson for energy minister Todd Smith said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News