Wedgeport wind turbine to proceed to next step

Baima Hydropower Station advances China renewable energy on the Wujiang River, a Yangtze tributary in Chongqing; a 525 MW cascade project approved by NDRC, delivering 1.76 billion kWh and improving river shipping.

Key Points

An NDRC-approved 525 MW project on Chongqing's Wujiang River, producing 1.76 billion kWh and improving navigation.

✅ 10.2 billion yuan investment; final cascade plant on Wujiang in Chongqing

✅ Expected output: 1.76 billion kWh; capacity 525 MW; NDRC approval

✅ Improves river shipping; relocation of 5,000 residents in Wulong

China plans to build a 525-MW hydropower station on the Wujiang River, a tributary of the Yangtze River, in Southwest China's Chongqing municipality, aligning with projects like the Lawa hydropower station elsewhere in the Yangtze basin.

The Baima project, the last of a cascade of hydropower stations on the section of the Wujiang River in Chongqing, has gotten the green light from the National Development and Reform Commission, China's state planning agency, even as some independent power projects elsewhere face uncertainty, such as the Siwash Creek project in British Columbia, the Chongqing Municipal Commission of Development and Reform said Monday.

The project, in Baima township of Wulong district, is expected to involve an investment of 10.2 billion yuan ($1.6 billion), as China explores compressed air generation to bolster grid flexibility, it said.

#google#

With a power-generating capacity of 525 MW, it is expected to generate 1.76 billion kwh of electricity a year, supporting efforts to reduce coal power production nationwide, and help improve the shipping service along the Wujiang River.

More than 5,000 local residents will be relocated to make room for the project, which forms part of a broader energy mix alongside advances in nuclear energy in China.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Just Transition for Coal and Nuclear Workers explains policy frameworks, compensation packages, retraining, and community support during decarbonization, plant closures, and energy shifts across Europe and the U.S., including Diablo Canyon and Uniper strategies.

Key Points

A policy approach to protect and retrain legacy power workers as coal and nuclear plants retire during decarbonization.

✅ Germany and Spain fund closures with compensation and retraining.

✅ U.S. lacks federal support; Diablo Canyon is a notable exception.

✅ Firms like Uniper convert coal sites to gas and clean energy roles.

The coronavirus pandemic has not changed the grim reality facing workers at coal and nuclear power plants in the U.S. and Europe. How those workers will fare in the years ahead will vary greatly based on where they live and the prevailing political winds.

In Europe, the retirement of aging plants is increasingly seen as a matter of national concern. Germany this year agreed to a €40 billion ($45 billion) compensation package for workers affected by the country's planned phaseout of coal generation by 2038, amid its broader exit from nuclear power as part of its energy transition. Last month the Spanish authorities agreed on a just transition plan affecting 2,300 workers across 12 thermal power plants that are due to close this year.

In contrast, there is no federal support plan for such workers in the U.S., said Tim Judson, executive director at the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which lobbies for an end to nuclear and fossil-fuel power.

For all of President Donald Trump’s professed love of blue-collar workers in sectors such as coal, “where there are economic transitions going on, we’re terrible at supporting workers and communities,” Judson said of the U.S. Even at the state level, support for such workers is "almost nonexistent,” he said, “although there are a lot of efforts going on right now to start putting in place just transition programs, especially for the energy sector.”

One example that stands out in the U.S. is the support package secured for workers at utility PG&E's Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California's last operating nuclear power plant that is scheduled for permanent closure in 2025. “There was a settlement between the utility, environmental groups and labor unions to phase out that plant that included a very robust just transition package for the workers and the local community,” Judson said.

Are there enough clean energy jobs to replace those being lost?
Governments are more likely to step in with "just transition" plans where they have been responsible for plant closures in the first place. This is the case for California, Germany and Spain, all moving aggressively to decarbonize their energy sectors and pursue net-zero emissions policy goals.

Some companies are beginning to take a more proactive approach to helping their workers with the transition. German energy giant Uniper, for example, is working with authorities to save jobs by seeking to turn coal plants into lower-emissions gas-fired units.

Germany’s coal phaseout will force Uniper to shut down 1.5 gigawatts of hard-coal capacity by 2022, but the company has said it is looking at "forward-looking" options for its plants that "will be geared toward tomorrow's energy world and offer long-term employment prospects."

Christine Bossak, Uniper’s manager of external communications, told GTM this approach would be adopted in all the countries where Uniper operates coal plants.

Job losses are usually inevitable when a plant is closed, Bossak acknowledged. “But the extent of the reduction depends on the alternative possibilities that can be created at the site or other locations. We will take care of every single employee, should he or she be affected by a closure. We work with the works council and our local partners to find sustainable solutions.”

Diana Junquera Curiel, energy industry director for the global union federation IndustriALL, said such corporate commitments looked good on paper — but the level of practical support depends on the prevailing political sentiment in a country, as seen in Germany's nuclear debate over climate strategy.

Even in Spain, where the closure of coal plants was being discussed 15 years ago, a final agreement had to be rushed through at the last minute upon the arrival of a socialist government, Junquera Curiel said. An earlier right-wing administration had sat on the plan for eight years, she added.

The hope is that heel-dragging over just transition programs will diminish as the scale of legacy plant closures grows.

Nuclear industry facing a similar challenge as coal
One reason why government support is so important is there's no guarantee a burgeoning clean energy economy will be able to absorb all the workers losing legacy generation jobs. Although the construction of renewable energy projects requires large crews, it often takes no more than a handful of people to operate and maintain a wind or solar plant once it's up and running, Junquera Curiel observed.

Meanwhile, the job losses are unlikely to slow. In Europe, Austria and Sweden both closed their last coal-fired units recently, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity in key markets.

In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration's base-case prediction is that coal's share of power generation will fall from 24 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2050, while nuclear's will fall from 20 percent to 12 percent over that time horizon. The EIA has long underestimated the growth trajectory of renewables in the mix; only in 2020 did it concede that renewables will eventually overtake natural gas as the country's largest source of power.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has predicted that even a coronavirus-inspired halt to renewables is unlikely to stop a calamitous drop in coal’s contribution to U.S. generation.

The nuclear sector faces a similar challenge as coal, albeit over a longer timeline. Last year saw the nuclear industry starting to lose capacity worldwide in what could be the beginning of a terminal decline, highlighted by Germany's shutdown of its last three reactors in 2023. Last week, the Indian Point Energy Center closed permanently after nearly half a century of cranking out power for New York City.*

“Amid ongoing debates over whether to keep struggling reactors online in certain markets, the industry position would be that governments should support continued operation of existing reactors and new build as part of an overall policy to transition to a sustainable clean energy system,” said Jonathan Cobb, senior communication manager at the World Nuclear Association.

If this doesn’t happen, plant workers will be hoping they can at least get a Diablo Canyon treatment. Based on the progress of just transition plans so far, that may depend on how they vote just as much as who they work for.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

DOE Office of Fossil Energy safeguards energy security via the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, domestic critical minerals from coal byproducts, and carbon capture to curb CO2, strengthening resiliency amid shocks and supporting U.S. manufacturing and defense.

Key Points

A DOE program advancing energy security through SPR stewardship, critical minerals R&D, and carbon capture.

✅ Manages the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for emergency crude supply

✅ Develops domestic critical minerals from coal and mining byproducts

✅ Deploys carbon capture, utilization, and storage to cut CO2

The global economy has just experienced a period of unique transformation because of COVID-19. The fact that remains constant in this new economic landscape is that our society relies on energy; it’s an integral part of our day-to-day lives, even as U.S. energy use has evolved over time. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, approximately 80 percent of energy consumption in the United States comes from fossil fuels, so having access to a secure and reliable supply of those energy resources is more important than ever for national energy security considerations today. Below are three examples that highlight how our work at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy (FE) helps ensure the Nation’s energy security and resiliency.

(1) Open crude oil reserves to respond to crises

FE has overall program responsibility for carrying out the mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the world’s largest supply of emergency crude oil. These federally-owned stocks are stored in massive underground salt caverns along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico. The SPR is a powerful tool U.S. leaders use to respond to a wide range of crises, including energy crisis impacts on electricity and fuels, involving crude oil disruption or demand loss.  When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the oil markets crashed and crude oil demand dropped drastically across the world. U.S. oil producers turned to the SPR to store their oil while broader energy dominance constraints were becoming evident in practice. This helped alleviate the pressure on producers to shut in oil production and proved to be a critical asset for American energy and national security.

(2) Use the Nation’s abundant coal reserves to produce valuable materials

Critical materials, including rare earth elements, are a group of chemical elements and materials with unique properties that support manufacturing of most modern technologies. They are essential components for critical defense and homeland security applications, green energy technologies, hybrid and electric vehicles, and high-value electronics. While these materials are not rare, they are hard to separate and expensive to extract. The United States relies heavily on imports from China. To reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources, FE has a research and development program aimed at producing a domestic supply of critical materials from the Nation’s abundant coal resources and associated byproducts from legacy and current mining operations. Many of the technologies being developed can also be used to separate critical minerals from other mining materials and byproducts. Tapping into these resources has the potential to create new industries and revitalize coal communities and the workforce in coal-producing regions.

(3) Decrease carbon emissions for a cleaner energy future

FE is committed to balancing the Nation’s energy use with the need to protect the environment, and has a comprehensive portfolio of technological solutions that help keep carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions out of the atmosphere. For example, amid high natural gas prices that reinforce the case for clean electricity, the Department has been investing in carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies for over a decade. These technologies capture CO2 emissions from various sources, including coal-fired power plants and manufacturing plants, before they enter the atmosphere. Several of these cutting-edge technologies have been deployed at major demonstration sites, supported by clean energy funding that aims to benefit millions. Three of these projects—Petra Nova, Archer Daniels Midland, and Air Products & Chemicals—have captured and injected over 10.8 million metric tons of CO2. The success of these projects is paving the way toward a cleaner and more sustainable American energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Minnesota 100% Carbon-Free Electricity advances renewable energy: wind, solar, hydropower, hydrogen, biogas from landfill gas and anaerobic digestion; excludes incineration in environmental justice areas; uses renewable energy credits and streamlined permitting.

Key Points

Minnesota's mandate requires utilities to deliver 100% carbon-free power by 2040 with targets and EJ safeguards.

✅ Utilities must hit 90% carbon-free by 2035; 100% by 2040.

✅ Incineration in EJ areas excluded; biogas, wind, solar allowed.

✅ Compliance via renewable credits; streamlined permitting.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, D, is expected to soon sign a bill establishing a clean electricity standard requiring utilities in the state to provide electricity from 100% carbon-free sources by 2040. The bill also calls for utilities to generate at least 55% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2035, a trajectory similar to New Mexico's clean electricity push underway this decade.

Electricity generated from landfill gas and anaerobic digestion are named as approved renewable energy technologies, but electricity generated from incinerators operating in “environmental justice areas”, reflecting concerns about renewable facilities violating pollution rules in some states, will not be counted toward the goal. Wind, solar, and certain hydropower and hydrogen energy sources are also considered renewable in the bill. 

The bill defines EJ areas as places where at least 40% of residents are not white, 35% of households have an income that’s below 200% of the federal poverty line, and 40% or more of residents over age 5 have “limited” English proficiency. Areas the U.S. state defines as “Indian country” are also considered EJ areas.

Some of the state’s largest electric utilities, like Xcel Energy and Minnesota Power, have already pledged to move to carbon-free energy, and utilities such as Alliant Energy have outlined carbon-neutral plans in the region, but this bill speeds up that goal by 10 years, Minnesota Public Radio reported. The bill calls for public utilities operating in the state to be 80% carbon-free and other electric utilities to be 60% carbon-free by 2030. All utilities must be 90% carbon-free by 2035 before ultimately hitting the 100% mark in 2040, according to the bill.  

The bill gives utilities some leniency if they demonstrate to state regulators that they can’t offer affordable power while working toward the benchmarks, acknowledging reliability challenges seen in places like California's grid during the clean energy transition. It also allows utilities to buy renewable energy credits to meet the standard instead of generating the energy themselves. 

Patrick Serfass, executive director of the American Biogas Council, said the bill will incentivize more biogas-related electricity projects, “which means the recycling of more organic material and more renewable electricity in the state. Those are all good things,” he said. ABC sees significant potential for biogas production in Minnesota, though the federal climate law has delivered mixed results for accelerating clean power deployment.

The bill also aims to streamline the permitting process for new energy projects in the state, even as some states consider limits on clean energy that would constrain utility use, and calls for higher minimum wage requirements for workers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Manitoba Hydro Privatization Debate centers on subsidiaries, Crown corporation governance, clean energy priorities, and electricity rates, as board terms shift oversight and transparency, sparking concerns about sell-offs and government control.

Key Points

A dispute over Hydro's governance, subsidiaries, electricity rates, and clean energy amid fears of partial privatization.

✅ Rewritten terms allow subsidiaries and shift board duties.

✅ Low rates and clean energy mandates softened in guidance.

✅ Govt cites Hydro Act; NDP warns of sell-off risks.

The board of Manitoba Hydro is being reminded it can divvy up some of the utility's work to subsidiaries — which the NDP is decrying as a step toward privatization. 

A sentence seemingly granting the board permission to create subsidiaries was included in the board's new terms of reference, which the NDP raised during question period Wednesday. 

The document also eliminated references asking Manitoba Hydro to keep electricity rates low, even as rate hike hearings proceed, and supply power in an environmentally-friendly fashion.

NDP raises spectre of Manitoba Hydro's privatization with new CEO
"They're essentially taking the heart out of Manitoba Hydro," NDP leader Wab Kinew said.

Cheap, clean energy is the basis by which the Crown corporation was formed, even as scaled-back rate increases are planned for next year, he said. 

"That's the whole reason we created this utility in the first place."

Another addition to the board's guidelines include stating the corporation is responsible to the government minister, who must be "proactively informed" when significant issues arise. 

The provincial government, however, says the rewritten terms of reference was the directive of the Manitoba Hydro board and not itself.

CBC's requests to the government for an interview were directed to Manitoba Hydro.

In an interview, Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Scott Powell said the energy utility has undergone no legislative changes, and is still governed by the Manitoba Hydro Act. 

The terms of reference were altered to align the board's duties with the new act overseeing Crown corporations, Powell said.

"Whether you have one or two words different in the terms of reference, the essence of the company hasn't changed."

While the new terms of reference no longer instructs the corporation to ensure an "environmentally responsible supply of energy for Manitobans," it encourages the board to "promote economy and efficiency in all phases of power generation and distribution."

On the cost to ratepayers, the updated directions asks the utility to deliver "safe, reliable energy services at a fair price," a standard clarified by a recent appeal court ruling on First Nations rates, but the board is not specifically instructed with keeping electricity rates low. 

Kinew contends the added sentence on subsidiaries permits Hydro to be broken off and sold for parts, although the terms of reference does not specify if any subsidiary would be wholly owned by Hydro or contracted to a private company.

Powell said Manitoba Hydro has been permitted to create subsidiaries since 1997, and nothing has changed since.

Kinew warned about Hydro's privatization last week when Jay Grewal was announced as Hydro's incoming CEO and president.

She was employed with B.C. Hydro when then-premier Gordon Campbell — hired by the Manitoba government to investigate costly overruns on two electricity megaprojects — sold off segments of the utility.

She then became managing director of Accenture, a global management consulting firm, which acquired several B.C. Hydro departments.

During question period Wednesday, Pallister disputed that Manitoba Hydro is bound to be sold.

He slammed the NDP's "Americanization strategy" of producing more electricity than it is capable of selling, which has saddled ratepayers with billions in debt and prompted proposed 2.5% annual increases in coming years. 

The makeup of the Hydro board has undergone a complete turnover in under a year, a contrast to Ontario's Hydro One shakeup vow during that period.

Nine of the 10 members resigned en masse this March over an impasse with the Pallister government. The lone holdover, Cliff Graydon, was dismissed from his post last month after the Progressive Conservatives removed him from caucus. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News