Pilot tests explores potential of smarter grids

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

NL Hydro electricity credit delivers a one-time on-bill rebate from the rate stabilization fund, linked to oil prices and the Holyrood plant, via the Public Utilities Board, with payment deferrals and interest relief for customers.

Key Points

A one-time on-bill credit from the rate stabilization fund to cut power costs as oil prices remain low.

✅ One-time on-bill credit via the Public Utilities Board

✅ Funded by surplus in the rate stabilization fund

✅ Deferrals and 15 months interest assistance available

Most people who pay electricity bills will get a one-time credit as early as July.

The provincial government on Thursday outlined a new directive to the Public Utilities Board to provide a one-time credit for customers whose electricity rates are affected by the price of oil, part of an effort to shield ratepayers from Muskrat Falls overruns through recent agreements.

Electricity customers who are not a part of the Labrador interconnected system, including those using diesel on the north coast of Labrador, will receive the credit.

The credit, announced at a press conference Thursday morning, will come from the rate stabilization fund and comes as many customers have begun paying for Muskrat Falls on their bills, which has an estimated surplus of about $50 million because low oil prices mean NL Hydro has spent less on fuel for the Holyrood thermal generating station.

Normally a surplus would be paid out over a year, but customers this year will get the credit in a lump sum, as early as July, with the amount varying based on electricity usage.

"Given the difficult times many are finding themselves in, we believe an upfront, one-time on-bill credit would be much more helpful for customers than a small monthly decrease over the next 12 months," said Natural Resources Minister Siobhan Coady at the provincial government's announcement Thursday morning.

Premier Dwight Ball said with many households and businesses experiencing financial hardship, the one-time credit is meant to make life a little easier, noting that Nova Scotia's premier has urged regulators to reject a major hike elsewhere.

"We have requested that the board of commissioners of the Public Utilities Board, even as Nova Scotia's regulator approved a 14% increase recently, adopt a policy so that a credit will be dispersed immediately," Ball said.

"This is to help people when they need it the most.… We're doing what we can to support you."

The provincial government estimates someone whose power costs an average of $200 a month would get a one-time credit of about $130. Details of the plan will be left to the PUB.

Deferred payments allowed
Ball said the credit will make a "significant impact" on customers' July bills.

Both businesses and residential customers will also be able to defer payments, similar to Alberta's deferral program that shifted costs for unpaid bills, with up to $2.5 million in interest being waived on overdue accounts. Customers will be required to make agreed-upon monthly payments to their account, and there will be interest assistance for 15 months, beginning June 1.

Coady said customers can renegotiate their bills and defer payments, with the province picking up the tab for the interest.

"You can speak to a customer service agent and they will make accommodations, but you have to continue to make some version of a monthly payment," Coady

"The interest that may be accrued is going to be paid for by the provincial government, so if you're a business, a person, and you're having difficulty and you can't make what I would say is your normal payment, call your utility, make some arrangements."

Labrador's interconnected grid isn't affected by the price of oil, but those customers can take advantage of the interest relief.

Relief policies already put in place during the pandemic, like not disconnecting customers and providing options for more flexible bill payments, will continue, as utilities such as Hydro One reconnecting customers demonstrate in Ontario.

Credit not enough to support customers: PCs
While Ball said his government is doing what they can to help ratepayers, the opposition doesn't believe the announcement does enough to support those who need it.

Tony Wakeham, the Progressive Conservative MHA for Stephenville-Port au Port, said in a statement Thursday the credit simply gives people's money back to them, after the NL Consumer Advocate called an 18% rate hike unacceptable, and Newfoundland Power stands to benefit. 

"The Liberal government would like ratepayers to believe that they are getting electricity rate relief, but in reality, customers would have been entitled to receive the value of this credit anyway over a 12-month period. Furthermore, in providing a one-time credit, Newfoundland Power will also be able to collect an administrative fee, adding to their revenues," Wakeham said in the statement.

"People and businesses in this province are struggling to pay their utility bills, and the Liberal government should help them by putting extra money into their pockets, not by recycling an already existing program to the benefit of a large corporation."

Wakeham called on government to direct the PUB to lower Newfoundland Power's guaranteed rate of return to give cash refunds to customers, and for Newfoundland Power to waive its fees.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NDC Renewable Energy Ambition drives COP25 calls to align with the Paris Agreement, as IRENA urges 2030 targets toward 7.7 TW, accelerating decarbonization, energy transition, socio-economic benefits, and scalable renewables in Nationally Determined Contributions.

Key Points

Raised 2030 renewable targets in NDCs to meet Paris goals, reaching 7.7 TW efficiently and speeding decarbonization.

✅ Double current NDC renewables to align with 7.7 TW by 2030

✅ Cost effective pathway with jobs, growth, welfare gains

✅ Accelerates decarbonization and energy access per UN goals

We need an oracle to get us out of this debacle. The UN climate group has met for the 25th time. Will anything ever change?

Countries are being urged to significantly raise renewable energy ambition and adopt targets to transform the global energy system in the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), according to a new IRENA report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) that will be released at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) in Madrid.

The report will show that renewable energy ambition within NDCs would have to more than double by 2030 to put the world in line with the Paris Agreement goals, cost-effectively reaching 7.7 terawatts (TW) of globally installed capacity by then. Today’s renewable energy pledges under the NDCs are falling short of this, targeting only 3.2 TW, even as over 30% of global electricity is already generated from renewables.

The reportNDCs in 2020: Advancing Renewables in the Power Sector and Beyondwill be released at IRENA’s official side event on enhancing NDCs and raising ambition on 11 December 2019.It will state that with over 2.3 TW installed renewable capacity today, following a record year for renewables in 2016, almost half of the additional renewable energy capacity foreseen by current NDCs has already been installed.

The analysis will also highlight that delivering on increased renewable energy ambition can be achieved in a cost-effective way and with considerable socio-economic benefits across the world.

“Increasing renewable energy targets is absolutely necessary,” said IRENA’s Director-General Francesco La Camera. “Much more is possible. There is a decisive opportunity for policy makers to step up climate action, including a fossil fuel lockdown, by raising ambition on renewables, which are the only immediate solution to meet rising energy demand whilst decarbonizing the economy and building resilience.

“IRENA’s analysis shows that a pathway to a decarbonised economy is technologically possible and socially and economically beneficial,” continued Mr. La Camera.

“Renewables are good for growth, good for job creation and deliver significant welfare benefits. With renewables, we can also expand energy access and help eradicate energy poverty by ensuring clean, affordable and sustainable electricity for all in line with the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2030.

IRENA will promote knowledge exchange, strengthen partnerships and work with all stakeholders to catalyse action on the ground. We are engaging with countries and regions worldwide, from Ireland's green electricity push to other markets, to facilitate renewable energy projects and raise their ambitions”.

NDCs must become a driving force for an accelerated global energy transformation toward 100% renewable energy globally. The current pledges reflect neither the past decade’s rapid growth nor the ongoing market trends for renewables. Through a higher renewable energy ambition, NDCs could serve to advance multiple climate and development objectives.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Blackout Liability Ruling clarifies appellate court findings in Houston, citing deregulated energy markets, ERCOT immunity, wholesale generators, retail providers, and 2021 winter storm lawsuits over grid failures and wrongful deaths.

Key Points

Houston judges held wholesale generators owe no duty to retail customers, limiting liability for 2021 blackout lawsuits.

✅ Court cites deregulated market and lack of privity to consumers

✅ Ruling shields generators from 2021 winter storm civil suits

✅ Plaintiffs plan appeals; legislature may address liability

Nearly three years after the devastating Texas blackout of 2021, a panel of judges from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has determined that major power companies cannot be held accountable for their failure to deliver electricity during the power grid crisis that unfolded, citing Texas' deregulated energy market as the reason.

This ruling appears likely to shield these companies from lawsuits that were filed against them in the aftermath of the blackout, leaving the families of those affected uncertain about where to seek justice.

In February 2021, a severe cold front swept over Texas, bringing extended periods of ice and snow. The extreme weather conditions increased energy demand while simultaneously reducing supply by causing power generators and the state's natural gas supply chain to freeze. This led to a blackout that left millions of Texans without power and water for nearly a week.

The state officially reported that almost 250 people lost their lives during the winter storm and subsequent blackout, although some analysts argue that this is a significant undercount and warn of blackout risks across the U.S. during severe heat as well.

In the wake of the storm, Texans affected by the energy system's failure began filing lawsuits, and lawmakers proposed a market bailout as political debate intensified. Some of these legal actions were directed against power generators whose plants either ceased to function during the storm or ran out of fuel for electricity generation.

After several years of legal proceedings, a three-judge panel was convened to evaluate the merits of these lawsuits.

This week, Chief Justice Terry Adams issued a unanimous opinion on behalf of the panel, stating, "Texas does not currently recognize a legal duty owed by wholesale power generators to retail customers to provide continuous electricity to the electric grid, and ultimately to the retail customers."

The opinion further clarified that major power generators "are now statutorily precluded by the legislature from having any direct relationship with retail customers of electricity."

This separation of power generation from transmission and retail electric sales in many parts of Texas resulted from energy market deregulation in the early 2000s, with the goal of reducing energy costs, and prompted electricity market reforms aimed at avoiding future blackouts.

Under the previous system, power companies were "vertically integrated," controlling generators, transmission lines, and selling the energy they produced directly to regional customers. However, in deregulated areas of Texas, competition was introduced, creating competing energy-generating companies and retail electric providers that purchase power wholesale and then sell it to residential consumers; meanwhile, electric cooperatives in other parts of the state remained member-owned providers.

Tré Fischer, a partner at the Jackson Walker law firm representing the power companies, explained, "One consequence of that was, because of the unbundling and the separation, you also don't have the same duties and obligations [to consumers]. The structure just doesn't allow for that direct relationship and correspondingly a direct obligation to continually supply the electricity even if there's a natural disaster or catastrophic event."

In the opinion, Justice Adams noted that when designing the Texas energy market, amid renewed interest in ways to improve electricity reliability across the grid, state lawmakers "could have codified the retail customers' asserted duty of continuous electricity on the part of wholesale power generators into law."

The recent ruling applies to five representative cases chosen by the panel out of hundreds filed after the blackout. Due to this decision, it is improbable that any of the lawsuits against power companies will succeed, according to the court's interpretation.

However, plaintiffs' attorneys have indicated their intention to appeal. They may request a review of the panel's opinion by the entire First Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the state supreme court.

The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state's power grid operator, enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued over the blackout.

This latest opinion raises the question of who, if anyone, can be held responsible for deaths and losses resulting from the blackout, a question left unaddressed by the court. Fischer commented, "If anything [the judges] were saying that is a question for the Texas legislature."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Rolls-Royce SMR UK Approval underscores nuclear innovation as regulators review a 470 MW factory-built modular reactor, aiming for grid power by 2029 to boost energy security, cut fossil fuels, and accelerate decarbonization.

Key Points

UK regulatory clearance for Rolls-Royce's 470 MW modular reactor, targeting grid power by 2029 to support clean energy.

✅ UK design approval expected by mid 2024

✅ First 470 MW unit aims for grid power by 2029

✅ Modular, factory-built; est. £1.8b per 10-acre site

A Rolls-Royce (RR.L) design for a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) will likely receive UK regulatory approval by mid-2024, reflecting progress seen in the US NRC safety evaluation for NuScale as a regulatory benchmark, and be able to produce grid power by 2029, Paul Stein, chairman of Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactors.

The British government asked its nuclear regulator to start the approval process in March, in line with the UK's green industrial revolution agenda, having backed Rolls-Royce’s $546 million funding round in November to develop the country’s first SMR reactor.

Policymakers hope SMRs will help cut dependence on fossil fuels and lower carbon emissions, as projects like Ontario's first SMR move ahead in Canada, showing momentum.

Speaking to Reuters in an interview conducted virtually, Stein said the regulatory “process has been kicked off, amid broader moves such as a Canadian SMR initiative to coordinate development, and will likely be complete in the middle of 2024.

“We are trying to work with the UK Government, and others to get going now placing orders, echoing expansions like Darlington SMR plans in Ontario, so we can get power on grid by 2029.”

In the meantime, Rolls-Royce will start manufacturing parts of the design that are most unlikely to change, while advancing partnerships like a MoU with Exelon to support deployment, Stein added.

Each 470 megawatt (MW) SMR unit costs 1.8 billion pounds ($2.34 billion) and would be built on a 10-acre site, the size of around 10 football fields, though projects in New Brunswick SMR debate have prompted questions about costs and timelines.

Unlike traditional reactors, SMRs are cheaper and quicker to build and can also be deployed on ships and aircraft. Their “modular” format means they can be shipped by container from the factory and installed relatively quickly on any proposed site.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News