AltaLink's Strong Year for Projects Delivers Greater Reliability and a Greener Future for Alberta Communities

OPG Small Modular Reactors advance clean energy with advanced nuclear, baseload power, renewables integration, and grid reliability; factory built, scalable, and cost effective to support Ontario energy security and net zero goals.

Key Points

Factory built nuclear units delivering reliable, low carbon power to support Ontario's grid, renewables, climate goals.

✅ Factory built modules cut costs and shorten schedules

✅ Provides baseload power to balance wind and solar

✅ Enhances grid reliability with advanced safety and waste reduction

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is at the forefront of Canada’s energy transformation, demonstrating a robust commitment to sustainable energy solutions. One of the most promising avenues under exploration is the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), as OPG broke ground on the first SMR at Darlington to launch this next phase. These innovative technologies represent a significant leap forward in the quest for reliable, clean, and cost-effective energy generation, aligning with Ontario’s ambitious climate goals and energy security needs.

Understanding Small Modular Reactors

Small Modular Reactors are advanced nuclear power plants that are designed to be smaller in size and capacity compared to traditional nuclear reactors. Typically generating up to 300 megawatts of electricity, SMRs can be constructed in factories and transported to their installation sites, offering flexibility and scalability that larger reactors do not provide. This modular approach reduces construction time and costs, making them an appealing option for meeting energy demands.

One of the key advantages of SMRs is their ability to provide baseload power—energy that is consistently available—while simultaneously supporting intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. As Ontario continues to increase its reliance on renewables, SMRs could play a crucial role in ensuring that the energy supply remains stable and secure.

OPG’s Initiative

In its commitment to advancing clean energy technologies, OPG has been a strong advocate for the adoption of SMRs. The province of Ontario has announced plans to develop three additional small modular reactors, part of its plans for four Darlington SMRs that would further enhance the region’s energy portfolio. This initiative aligns with both provincial and federal climate objectives, and reflects a collaborative provincial push on nuclear innovation to accelerate clean energy.

The deployment of SMRs in Ontario is particularly strategic, given the province’s existing nuclear infrastructure, including the continued operation of Pickering NGS that supports grid reliability. OPG operates a significant portion of Ontario’s nuclear fleet, and leveraging this existing expertise can facilitate the integration of SMRs into the energy mix. By building on established operational frameworks, OPG can ensure that new reactors are deployed safely and efficiently.

Economic and Environmental Benefits

The introduction of SMRs is expected to bring substantial economic benefits to Ontario. The construction and operation of these reactors will create jobs, including work associated with the Pickering B refurbishment across the province, stimulate local economies, and foster innovation in nuclear technology. Additionally, SMRs have the potential to attract investment from both domestic and international stakeholders, positioning Ontario as a leader in advanced nuclear technology.

From an environmental perspective, SMRs are designed with enhanced safety features and lower waste production compared to traditional reactors, complementing life-extension measures at Pickering that bolster system reliability. They can significantly contribute to Ontario’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. By providing a reliable source of clean energy, SMRs will help mitigate the impacts of climate change while supporting the province's transition to a sustainable energy future.

Community Engagement and Collaboration

Recognizing the importance of community acceptance and stakeholder engagement, OPG is committed to an open dialogue with local communities and Indigenous groups. This collaboration is essential to addressing concerns and ensuring that the deployment of SMRs is aligned with the values and priorities of the residents of Ontario. By fostering a transparent process, OPG aims to build trust and support for this innovative energy solution.

Moreover, the development of SMRs will involve partnerships with various stakeholders, including government agencies, research institutions, and private industry, such as the OPG-TVA partnership to advance new nuclear technology. These collaborations will not only enhance the technical aspects of SMR deployment but also ensure that Ontario can capitalize on shared expertise and resources.

Looking Ahead

As Ontario Power Generation moves forward with plans for three additional Small Modular Reactors, the province stands at a critical juncture in its energy evolution. The integration of SMRs into Ontario’s energy landscape promises a sustainable, reliable, and economically viable solution to meet growing energy demands while addressing climate change challenges.

With the support of government initiatives, community collaboration, and continued innovation in nuclear technology, Ontario is poised to become a leader in the advancement of Small Modular Reactors. The successful implementation of these projects could serve as a model for other jurisdictions seeking to transition to cleaner energy sources, highlighting the role of nuclear power in a balanced and sustainable energy future.

In conclusion, OPG's commitment to developing Small Modular Reactors not only reinforces Ontario’s energy security but also demonstrates a proactive approach to addressing the pressing challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability. The future of energy in Ontario looks promising, driven by innovation and a commitment to clean energy solutions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Electricity Rates update: OEB sets time-of-use and tiered pricing for residential customers, with kWh charges for peak, mid-peak, and off-peak periods reflecting COVID-19 impacts on demand, supply costs, and pricing.

Key Points

Ontario Electricity Rates are OEB-set time-of-use and tiered prices that set per-kWh costs for residential customers.

✅ Time-of-use: 21.7 peak, 15.0 mid-peak, 10.5 off-peak cents/kWh

✅ Tiered: 12.6 cents/kWh up to 1000 kWh, then 14.6 cents/kWh

✅ Average 700 kWh home pays about $2.24 more per month

Energy bills for the typical Ontario home are going up by about two per cent with fixed pricing coming to an end on Nov. 1, the Ontario Energy Board says. 

The province's electricity regulator has released new time-of-use pricing and says the rate for the average residential customer using 700 kWh per month will increase by about $2.24.

The change comes as Ontario stretches into its eight month of the COVID-19 pandemic with new case counts reaching levels higher than ever seen before.

Time-of-use pricing had been scrapped for residential bills for much for the pandemic with a single fixed COVID-19 hydro rate set for all hours of the day. The move, which came into effect June 1, was meant "to support families, small business and farms while Ontario plans for the safe and gradual reopening of the province," the OEB said at the time.

Ontario later set the off-peak price until February 7 around the clock to provide additional relief.

Fixed pricing meant customers' bills reflected how much power they used, rather than when they used it. Customers were charged 12.8 cents/kWh under the COVID-19 recovery rate no matter their time of use.

Beginning November, the province says customers can choose between time-of-use and tiered pricing options. Rates for time-of-use plans will be 21.7 cents/kWh during peak hours, 15 cents/kWh for mid-peak use and 10.5 cents/kWh for off-peak use. 

Customers choosing tiered pricing will pay 12.6 cents/kWh for the first 1000 kWh each month and then 14.6 cents/kWh for any power used beyond that.

The energy board says the increase in pricing reflects "a combination of factors, including those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, that have affected demand, supply costs and prices in the summer and fall of 2020."

Asked for his reaction to the move Tuesday, Premier Doug Ford said, "I hate it," adding the province inherited an energy "mess" from the previous Liberal government and are "chipping away at it."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Global Adjustment Charge faces constitutional scrutiny as a regulatory charge vs tax; Court of Appeal revives case over electricity pricing, feed-in tariff contracts, IESO policy, and hydro rate impacts on consumers and industry.

Key Points

A provincial electricity fee funding generator contracts, now central to a court fight over tax versus regulatory charge.

✅ Funds gap between market price and contracted generator rates

✅ At issue: regulatory charge vs tax under constitutional law

✅ Linked to feed-in tariff, IESO policy, and hydro rate hikes

Ontario’s court of appeal has decided that a constitutional challenge of a steep provincial electricity charge should get its day in court, overturning a lower-court judgment that had dismissed the legal bid.

Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. launched the challenge in 2017, saying Ontario’s so-called global adjustment charge was unconstitutional because it is a tax — not a valid regulatory charge — that was not passed by the legislature.

The global adjustment funds the difference between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts to power generators. It is “the component that covers the cost of building new electricity infrastructure in the province, maintaining existing resources, as well as providing conservation and demand management programs,” the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator says.

However, the global adjustment now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household electricity bill, and its costs have ballooned, as regulators elsewhere consider a proposed 14% rate hike in Nova Scotia.

Ontario’s auditor general said in 2015 that global adjustment fees had increased from $650 million in 2006 to more than $7 billion in 2014. She added that consumers would pay $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032, after having already paid $37 billion from 2006 to 2014.

National Steel Car, which manufactures steel rail cars and faces high electricity rates that hurt Ontario factories, said its global adjustment costs went from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, according to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision released on Wednesday.

The company claimed the global adjustment was a tax because one of its components funds electricity procurement contracts under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which National Steel Car called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity,” the decision said.

Ontario’s auditor general said the FIT program “paid excessive prices to renewable energy generators.” The program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place.

National Steel Car claimed the FIT program “was actually designed to accomplish social goals unrelated to the generation of electricity,” such as helping rural and indigenous communities, and was therefore a tax trying to help with policy goals.

“The appellant submits that the Policy Goals can be achieved by Ontario in several ways, just not through the electricity pricing formula,” the decision said.

National Steel Car also argued the global adjustment violated a provincial law that requires the government to hold a referendum for new taxes.

“The appellant’s principal claim is that the Global Adjustment was a ‘colourable attempt to disguise a tax as a regulatory charge with the purpose of funding the costs of the Policy Goals,’” the decision said. “The appellant pressed this argument before the motion judge and before this court. The motion judge did not directly or adequately address it.”

The Ontario government applied to have the challenge thrown out for having “no reasonable cause of action,” and a Superior Court judge did so in 2018, saying the global adjustment is not a tax.

National Steel Car appealed the decision, and the decision published Wednesday allowed the appeal, set aside the lower-court judgment, and will send the case back to Superior Court, where it could get a full hearing.

“The appellant’s claim is sufficiently plausible on the evidentiary record it put forward that the applications should not have been dismissed on a pleadings motion before the development of a full record,” wrote Justice Peter D. Lauwers. “It is not plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the Global Adjustment, and particularly the challenged component, is properly characterized as a valid regulatory charge and not as an impermissible tax.”

Jerome Morse of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers, said the Ontario government would now have 60 days to decide whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“What the court has basically said is, ‘this is a plausible argument, here are the reasons why it’s plausible, there was no answer to this,’” Morse told the Financial Post.

Ontario and the IESO had supported the lower-court decision, but there has been a change in government since the challenge was first launched, with Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford replacing the Liberals and Kathleen Wynne in power. The Liberals had launched a plan aimed at addressing hydro costs before losing in a 2018 election, the main thrust of which had been to refinance global adjustment costs.

Wednesday’s decision states that “Ontario’s counsel advised the court that the current Ontario government ‘does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement policy (since-repealed).’

“The government’s view is that: ‘The solution does not lie with the courts, but instead in the political arena with political actors,’” it adds.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in an email that they are reviewing the decision but “as this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment.” 

Ontario had also requested to stay the matter so a regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, could weigh in, while the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate case.

“However, Ontario only sought this relief from the motion judge in the alternative, and given the motion judge’s ultimate decision, she did not rule on the stay,” Thursday’s decision said. “It would be premature for this court to rule on the issue, although it seems incongruous for Ontario to argue that the Superior Court is the convenient forum in which to seek to dismiss the applications as meritless, but that it is not the convenient forum for assessing the merits of the applications.”

National Steel Car’s challenge bears a resemblance to the constitutional challenges launched by Ontario and other provinces over the federal government’s carbon tax, but Justice Lauwers wrote “that the federal legislative scheme under consideration in those cases is distinctly different from the legislation at issue in this appeal.”

“Nothing in those decisions impacts this appeal,” the judge added.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

London Underground Power Outage 2025 disrupted Tube lines citywide, with a National Grid voltage dip causing service suspensions, delays, and station closures; TfL recovery efforts spotlight infrastructure resilience, contingency planning, and commuter safety communications.

Key Points

A citywide Tube disruption on May 12, 2025, triggered by a National Grid voltage dip, exposing resilience gaps.

✅ Bakerloo, Waterloo & City, Northern suspended; Jubilee disrupted.

✅ Cause: brief National Grid fault leading to a voltage dip.

✅ TfL focuses on recovery, communication, and resilience upgrades.

On May 12, 2025, a significant power outage disrupted the London Underground during the afternoon rush hour, affecting thousands of commuters across the city. The incident highlighted vulnerabilities in the city's transport infrastructure, echoing a morning outage in London reported earlier, and raised concerns about the resilience of urban utilities.

The Outage and Its Immediate Impact

The power failure occurred around 2:30 PM, leading to widespread service suspensions and delays on several key Tube lines. The Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines were completely halted, while the Jubilee line experienced disruptions between London Bridge and Finchley Road. The Northern line was also suspended between Euston and Kennington, as well as south of Stockwell. Additionally, Elizabeth Line services between Abbey Wood and Paddington were suspended. Some stations were closed for safety reasons due to the lack of power.

Commuters faced severe delays, with many stranded in tunnels or on platforms. The lack of information and communication added to the confusion, as passengers were left uncertain about the cause and duration of the disruptions.

Cause of the Power Failure

Transport for London (TfL) attributed the outage to a brief fault in the National Grid's transmission network. Although the fault was resolved within seconds, it caused a voltage dip that affected local distribution networks, leading to the power loss in the Underground system.

The incident underscored the fragility of the city's transport infrastructure, particularly the aging electrical and signaling systems that are vulnerable to such faults, as well as weather-driven events like a major windstorm outage that can trigger cascading failures. While backup systems exist, their capacity to handle sudden disruptions remains a concern.

Broader Implications for Urban Infrastructure

This power outage is part of a broader pattern of infrastructure challenges facing London. In March 2025, a fire at an electrical substation in Hayes led to the closure of Heathrow Airport, affecting over 200,000 passengers, while similar disruptions at BWI Airport have underscored aviation vulnerabilities. These incidents have prompted discussions about the resilience of the UK's energy and transport networks.

Experts argue that aging infrastructure, coupled with increasing demand and climate-related stresses, poses significant risks to urban operations, as seen in a North Seattle outage and in Toronto storm-related outages that tested local grids. There is a growing call for investment in modernization and diversification of energy sources to ensure reliability and sustainability.

TfL's Response and Recovery Efforts

Following the outage, TfL worked swiftly to restore services. By 11 PM, all but one line had resumed operations, with only the Elizabeth Line continuing to experience severe delays. TfL officials acknowledged the inconvenience caused to passengers and pledged to investigate the incident thoroughly, similar to the Atlanta airport blackout inquiry conducted after a major outage, to prevent future occurrences.

In the aftermath, TfL emphasized the importance of clear communication with passengers during disruptions and committed to enhancing its contingency planning and infrastructure resilience.

Public Reaction and Ongoing Concerns

The power outage sparked frustration among commuters, many of whom took to social media to express their dissatisfaction, echoing sentiments during Houston's extended outage about communication gaps and delays. Some passengers reported being trapped in tunnels for extended periods without clear guidance from staff.

The incident has reignited debates about the adequacy of London's transport infrastructure and the need for comprehensive upgrades. While TfL has initiated reviews and improvement plans, the public remains concerned about the potential for future disruptions and the city's preparedness to handle them.

The May 12 power outage serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in urban infrastructure. As London continues to grow and modernize, ensuring the resilience of its transport and energy networks will be crucial. This includes investing in modern technologies, enhancing communication systems, and developing robust contingency plans to mitigate the impact of future disruptions. For now, Londoners are left reflecting on the lessons learned from this incident and hoping for a more reliable and resilient transport system in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

China Power Rationing disrupts the solar supply chain as coal shortages, price controls, and dual-control emissions policy curb electricity, squeezing polysilicon, aluminum, and module production and raising equipment costs amid surging post-Covid industrial demand.

Key Points

China's electricity curbs from coal shortages, price caps, and emissions targets disrupt solar output and materials.

✅ Polysilicon and aluminum output cut by power rationing

✅ Coal price spikes and power price caps squeeze generators

✅ Dual-control emissions policy triggers provincial curbs

The solar manufacturing supply chain is among the industries being affected by a combination of soaring power demand, coal shortages, and carbon emission reduction measures which have seen widespread power cuts in China.

In Yunnan province, in southwest China, producers of the silicon metal which feeds polysilicon have been operating at 10% of the output they achieved in August. They are expected to continue to do so for the rest of the year as provincial authorities try to control electricity demand with a measure that is also affecting the phosphorus industry.

Fellow solar supply chain members from the aluminum industry in Guangxi province, in the south, have been forced to operate just two days per week, alongside peers in the concrete, steel, lime, and ceramics segments. Manufacturers in neighboring Guangdong have access to normal power supplies only on Fridays and Saturdays with electricity rationed to a 15% grid security load for the rest of the time.

pv magazine USA reported that a Tier 1 solar module manufacturer warned customers in an email that energy shortages in China have forced it to reduce or stop production at its Chinese manufacturing sites. The company warned the event will also affect output from its downstream cell and module production facilities in Southeast Asia.

The memo said that in order to recover from the effects of the “potential Force Majeure event,” it may delay or stop equipment delivery or seek to renegotiate contracts to pass through higher prices.

Raw material sourcing
With reports of drastic power shortages emerging from China in recent days, the country has actually been experiencing problems since late June, and similar pressures have seen India ration coal supplies this year, but rationing is not unusual during the peak summer hours.

What has changed this time is that the outages have continued and prompted rationing measures across 19 of the nation’s provinces for the rest of the year. The problems have been caused by a combination of rising post-Covid electricity demand at a time when the politically-motivated ban on imports of Australian coal has tightened supply; and the manner in which Beijing controls power prices, with the situation further exacerbated by carbon emissions reduction policy.

Demand
Electricity demand from industry, underscoring China’s electricity appetite, was 13.5 percentage points higher in the first eight months of the year than in the same period of 2020, at 3,585 TWh. That reflected a 13.8% year-on-year rise in total consumption, following earlier power demand drops when coronavirus shuttered plants, to 5.47 PWh, according to data from state energy industry trade body the China Electricity Council.

Figures produced by the China General Administration of Customs tell the same story: a rebound driven by the global recovery from the pandemic, as global power demand surges above pre-pandemic levels, with China recording import and export trade worth RMB2.48 trillion ($385 billion) in January-to-August. That was up 23.7% on the same period of last year and 22.8% higher than in the first eight months of 2019.

With Beijing having enforced an unofficial ban on imports of Australian coal for the last year or so – as the result of an ongoing diplomatic spat with Australia – rising demand for coal (which provided around 73% of Chinese electricity in the first half of the year) has further raised prices for the fossil fuel.

The problem for Chinese coal-fired power generators is that Beijing maintains strict controls on the price of electricity. As a result, input costs cannot be passed on to consumers. The mismatch between a liberalized coal market and centrally controlled end-user prices is illustrated by the current situation in Guangdong. There, a coal price of RMB1,560 per ton ($242) has pushed the cost of coal-fired electricity up to RMB0.472 per kilowatt-hour ($0.073). With coal power companies facing an electricity price ceiling of around RMB0.463/kWh ($0.071), generators are losing around RMB0.12 for every kilowatt-hour they generate. In that situation, rationing electricity supplies is an obvious remedy.

The crisis has been worsened by the introduction of China’s “dual control” energy policy, which aims to help meet President Xi Jinping’s climate change pledge of hitting peak carbon emissions this decade and a net zero economy by 2060, and to reduce coal power production over time. Dual control refers to attempts to wind down greenhouse gas emissions at both a national level and in more local areas, such as provinces and cities.

Red status
With the finer details of the carbon reduction policy yet to be ironed out, government departments and provincial and city authorities have started to set their own emission-reduction targets. In mid-August, state planning body the China National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) published a table of the energy control situation across the nation. With nine provinces marked red for their energy consumption, and a further 10 highlighted as yellow, officials received another motivation to introduce power rationing.

China’s solar industry is being impacted by coal shortages for electric power generation. In this 2014 photo, a thermal generating plant’s cooling towers loom over a street in Henan Province.
Image: flickr/V.T. Polywoda

The current approach of rolling blackouts seems unlikely to be a sustainable solution, as surging electricity demand strains power systems worldwide, given the damage it could inflict on industry and the resentment it would cause in parts of the nation already preparing for winter.

The choice facing China’s policymakers is whether to ramp up coal supplies to force prices down by using decommissioned domestic supplies and halting the ban on Australian imports, or to raise electricity prices to prompt generators to get the lights back on. While the drawbacks of raising household electricity bills seem obvious, the first approach of using more coal could endanger the nation’s climate change commitments on the even of the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, in November. Sources close to the NDRC have suggested the electricity price may be set to rise soon.

GDP
What is clear is the effect the energy crisis is having on the Chinese economy and on the solar supply chain. Leading up to a  national day holiday in China, the coal price in northern China rose to around RMB2,000 per ton ($310), three times higher than at the beginning of the year.

Investment bank China International Capital Corp. blamed the dual control emission reduction policy for the electricity shortages. It predicted a 0.1-0.15 percentage point impact on economic growth in the last quarter of 2021.  Morgan Stanley has put that figure at 1% in the current quarter, if industrial output restrictions continue. And Japan’s Nomura Securities revised down its annual forecast on Chinese growth from 8.2% to 7.7%. It now expects GDP gains in the third and fourth quarters to cool from 5.1% to 4.7%, and from 4.4% to 3%, respectively.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News