History may not repeat itself exactly, but those who have a half-decent memory can see the parallels between the BCE debacle - which is so far off the mark that the parties are now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - and Hydro One.
In 2002, the Ontario government was set to privatize Hydro One, the province's distribution and transmission utility. In March it filed a preliminary prospectus to sell common shares and instalment receipts. The deal was set to be the country's largest equity financing - about $5-billion. BMO Capital markets, RBC Capital Markets and Goldman Sachs were the joint book runners. (Mark Carney, now the Governor of the Bank of Canada, was on the file for Goldman.)
Two unions - the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) - opposed the privatization. So they hired the law firm Sack Goldblatt Mitchell to represent them. At the time, the lawsuit was viewed as nothing more than an irritant with little, if any, chance of success.
Things turned out otherwise. Justice Arthur Gans of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the provincial government does not have legal authority to relinquish public control of the corporation, by offering its shares for sale to private investors. Justice Gans said the sale was illegal under the province's Electricity Act. In effect, Justice Gans ruled that Section 48 of the Electricity Act allows the government to hold and acquire - but not sell - shares in the company.
The provincial government then had a choice: It could have rewritten the legislation to give it the proper legal authority to go ahead; or it could decide not to go ahead. In the end, it chose the latter option. Hydro One was not privatized - indeed, there is no discussion that it will choose such a path.
Sprott Inc., the name for the former Sprott Asset Management, has been public for seven days.
And in that time, virtually all of the company's float of 20 million shares has been turned over. At the close of business, 19.2 million shares had been traded. Sprott's other distinction: Those who participated in the initial public offering are either underwater, if they mark to market, or have taken a loss if they sold into the market. The average closing price was $9.42.
In its time as a public company, a mere 15,200 shares have been sold at a price higher than the $10 issue price. And those trades - which were bought and sold in 11 transactions - were done at $10.01. After deducting the commission, the net proceeds would be less than $10 per share.
The Sprott experience, at least in the early days, is similar to what occurred when Gluskin Sheff & Associates went public in May, 2006. (As with Sprott, GS's deal was all secondary, meaning the company got none of the proceeds. Instead, the cash went to the selling shareholders.)
U.S. EV and Hybrid Sales 2024 show slower adoption versus gas-powered cars, as charging infrastructure gaps, range anxiety, higher upfront costs, and affordability concerns persist despite incentives, battery tech advances, and expanding fast-charging networks.
Key Points
They represent 10-15% of U.S. car sales, lagging gas models due to costs, charging gaps, range anxiety, and access.
✅ 10-15% of U.S. auto sales; gas cars dominate
✅ Barriers: upfront cost, limited charging, range anxiety
✅ Incentives, battery tech, and networks may boost adoption
Sales of hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs) in the U.S. are continuing to trail behind traditional gas-powered vehicles in 2024, despite significant advancements in automotive technology and growing public awareness of environmental concerns. While the electric vehicle market has seen steady growth and recent sales momentum over the past few years, the gap between EVs and gasoline-powered cars remains wide.
In 2024, hybrid and electric vehicles are projected to account for roughly 10-15% of total car sales in the U.S., a figure that, though significant, still lags far behind the sales of gas-powered vehicles and follows a Q1 2024 EV market share dip in the U.S., according to recent data. Analysts point to several factors contributing to this slower adoption rate, including higher upfront costs, limited charging infrastructure, and consumer concerns over range anxiety. Additionally, while EVs and hybrids offer lower lifetime operating costs, the initial price difference remains a hurdle for many prospective buyers.
One of the key challenges for EV sales continues to be the perception of cost, even as analyses show they can be better for the planet and often your budget over time. While federal and state incentives have made EVs more affordable, especially for lower-income buyers, the price tag for many electric models remains steep, particularly for higher-end vehicles. Even with government rebates, EVs can still be priced higher than their gasoline counterparts, making them less accessible for middle-class consumers. Many potential buyers are also hesitant to make the switch, unsure if the long-term savings will outweigh the initial investment.
Another critical factor is the limited charging infrastructure in many parts of the country. Though major cities have seen significant improvements in charging stations, rural areas and smaller towns still lack the necessary infrastructure to support widespread EV use. This uneven distribution of charging stations leads to concerns about being stranded in areas without access to fast-charging options. While automakers are working on expanding charging networks, the pace of this development is slow, and EVs won't go mainstream until key problems are fixed according to industry leaders.
Range anxiety is also a continuing issue, despite improvements in battery technology. Though newer electric vehicles can go further on a single charge than ever before, the range of many EVs still doesn't meet the expectations of some drivers, particularly those who regularly take long road trips or live in rural areas. The longer charging times and the necessity of planning routes around charging stations add to the hesitation, especially when gasoline-powered vehicles provide greater convenience and flexibility.
The shift toward EVs is further hindered by the continued dominance of gas-powered cars in the market. Gasoline vehicles benefit from decades of development, an extensive fueling infrastructure, and familiarity with the technology. For many consumers, the convenience, affordability, and ease of use of gas-powered vehicles still outweigh the benefits of switching to an electric alternative. Additionally, with fluctuating fuel prices, many drivers continue to find gas-powered cars relatively cost-effective in terms of daily commuting, especially when compared to the current costs of EV ownership.
Despite these challenges, there is hope for a future shift. The federal government’s push for stricter emissions regulations and tax incentives continues to fuel growth in the electric vehicle market. As automakers ramp up production and more affordable options become available, EV sales are expected to increase in the coming years. Companies like Tesla, Ford, whose hybrids are getting a boost, and General Motors are leading the charge, while new manufacturers like Rivian and Lucid Motors are offering alternatives to traditional gasoline vehicles.
Furthermore, the development of new technologies, such as solid-state batteries and faster charging systems, could help alleviate some of the current drawbacks of electric vehicles. If these advancements reach mass-market production in the next few years, they could help make EVs a more attractive and practical option for consumers, aligning with within-a-decade adoption forecasts from some industry observers.
In conclusion, while hybrid and electric vehicles are growing in popularity, gas-powered vehicles continue to dominate the U.S. car market in 2024. Challenges such as high upfront costs, limited charging infrastructure, and concerns about range persist, making it difficult for many consumers to make the switch to electric even as they ask if it's time to buy an EV in 2024. However, with continued investment in technology and infrastructure, the gap between EVs and gas-powered vehicles could narrow in the years to come.
Switch-On Project Electric Trucks accelerate California freight decarbonization, deploying Volvo VNR Electric rigs with high-capacity charging infrastructure, zero-emissions operations, and connected safety features to cut greenhouse gases and improve urban air quality.
Key Points
A California program deploying Volvo VNR Electric trucks and charging to decarbonize freight and improve air quality.
✅ 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks for regional logistics
✅ Strategic high-capacity charging for heavy-duty fleets
✅ Lower TCO via fuel savings and reduced maintenance
In a significant step toward sustainable transportation, the Switch-On project is bringing 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks to California. This initiative aims to bolster the state's efforts to reduce emissions and transition to greener logistics solutions. The arrival of these electric vehicles marks an important milestone in California's commitment to combating climate change and improving air quality.
The Switch-On Project: Overview and Goals
The Switch-On project is a collaborative effort designed to enhance electric truck adoption in California. It focuses on developing the necessary infrastructure and technology to support electric vehicles (EVs) in the freight and logistics sectors, building on recent nonprofit investments at California ports. The project not only seeks to increase the availability of electric trucks but also aims to demonstrate their effectiveness in real-world applications.
California has set ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the transportation sector, which is one of the largest contributors to air pollution. By introducing electric trucks into freight operations, the state aims to significantly cut emissions, improve public health, and pave the way for a more sustainable future.
The Volvo VNR Electric Trucks
The Volvo VNR Electric trucks are specifically designed for regional distribution and urban transport, aligning with Volvo's broader electric lineup as the company expands offerings, making them ideal for the needs of California’s freight industry. With a range of approximately 250 miles on a single charge, these trucks can efficiently handle most regional routes. Equipped with advanced technology, including regenerative braking and connectivity features, the VNR Electric models enhance operational efficiency and safety.
These trucks not only provide a cleaner alternative to traditional diesel vehicles but also promise lower operational costs over time. With reduced fuel expenses and lower maintenance needs, and emerging vehicle-to-grid pilots that can create new value streams, businesses can benefit from significant savings while contributing to environmental sustainability.
Infrastructure Development
A crucial aspect of the Switch-On project is the development of charging infrastructure to support the new fleet of electric trucks. The project partners are working on installing high-capacity charging stations strategically located throughout California while addressing utility planning challenges that large fleets will pose to the power system. This infrastructure is essential to ensure that electric trucks can be charged efficiently, minimizing downtime and maximizing productivity.
The charging stations are designed to accommodate the specific needs of heavy-duty vehicles, and corridor models like BC's Electric Highway provide useful precedents for network design, allowing for rapid charging that aligns with operational schedules. This development not only supports the new fleet but also encourages other logistics companies to consider electric trucks as a viable option for their operations.
Benefits to California
The introduction of 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks will have several positive impacts on California. Firstly, it will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the freight sector, contributing to the state’s ambitious climate goals even as grid expansion will be needed to support widespread electrification across sectors. The transition to electric trucks is expected to improve air quality, particularly in urban areas that struggle with high pollution levels.
Moreover, the project serves as a model for other regions considering similar initiatives. By showcasing the practicality and benefits of electric trucks, California hopes to inspire widespread adoption across the nation. As the market for electric vehicles continues to grow, this project can play a pivotal role in accelerating the transition to sustainable transportation solutions.
Industry and Community Reactions
The arrival of the Volvo VNR Electric trucks has been met with enthusiasm from both industry stakeholders and community members. Logistics companies are excited about the opportunity to reduce their carbon footprints and operational costs. Meanwhile, environmental advocates applaud the project as a crucial step toward cleaner air and healthier communities.
California’s commitment to sustainable transportation has positioned it as a leader in the shift to electric vehicles amid an ongoing biofuels vs. EVs debate over the best path forward, setting an example for other states and countries.
Conclusion
The Switch-On project represents a major advancement in California's efforts to transition to electric transportation. With the deployment of 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks, the state is not only taking a significant step toward reducing emissions but also demonstrating the feasibility of electric logistics solutions.
As infrastructure develops and more electric trucks hit the roads, California is paving the way for a greener, more sustainable future in transportation. The success of this project could have far-reaching implications, influencing policies and practices in the broader freight industry and beyond.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
BC Hydro Electricity Imports shape CleanBC claims as Powerex trades cross-border electricity, blending hydro with coal and gas supplies, affecting emissions, grid carbon intensity, and how electric vehicles and households assess "clean" power.
Key Points
Powerex buys power for BC Hydro, mixing hydro with coal and gas, shifting emissions and affecting CleanBC targets.
✅ Powerex trades optimize price, not carbon intensity
✅ Imports can include coal- and gas-fired generation
✅ Emissions affect EV and CleanBC decarbonization claims
British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car.
That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, amid indications that residents are split on going nuclear according to a survey, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.
“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.”
Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C.
Here’s why.
BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low.
In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures and the commissioning of two new generating stations in B.C.) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.
“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC.
“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas.
Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)
Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy amid debate over the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year.
So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.
Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.
In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle.
These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.
Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.
BC Electric Vehicles Announcement Horgan Heyman Mungall Weaver
In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr
“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry, noting that electrification has prompted a first call for power in 15 years from BC Hydro.
Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.
“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”
Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex
These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws.
Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly.
According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018.
“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.”
Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.
“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says.
“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.”
In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million.
Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year.
In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.
‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power
Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement.
But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.”
Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where generators are shifting to gas and 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.
“It really is impossible to make that determination.”
Wyoming Gilette coal pits NASA
The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory
Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta.
But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources.
In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator.
Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C.
California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C.
And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year.
By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million, Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.
Clean electrons or dirty electrons?
Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand.
Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes.
“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”
Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.
Hydro One CEO Pay Cap sets executive compensation at $1.5 million under Ontario's provincial directive, linking incentives to transmission and distribution cost reductions, governance improvements, and board pay limits at the electricity utility.
Key Points
The Hydro One CEO Pay Cap limits pay to $1.5M, linking incentives to cost reductions and defined targets.
✅ Base salary set at $500,000 per year.
✅ Incentives capped at $1,000,000, tied to cost cuts.
✅ Board pay capped: chair $120,000; members $80,000.
Hydro One has agreed to cap the annual compensation of its chief executive at $1.5 million, the provincial utility said Friday, acquiescing to the demands of the Progressive Conservative government.
The CEO's base salary will be set at $500,000 per year, while short-term and long-term incentives are limited to $1 million. Performance targets under the pay plan will include the CEO's contributions to reductions in transmission and distribution costs, even as Hydro One has pursued a bill redesign to clarify charges for customers.
The framework represents a notable political victory for Premier Doug Ford, who vowed to fire Hydro One's CEO and board during the campaign and promised to reduce the annual earnings of Hydro One's board members.
In February, the province issued a directive to the board, ordering it to pay the utility's CEO no more than the $1.5 million figure it has now agreed to, as part of a broader push to lower electricity rates across Ontario.
Hydro One and the government had been at loggerheads over executive compensation, with the company refusing repeated requests to slash the CEO pay below $2,775,000. The board argued it would have difficulty recruiting suitable leaders for anything less, even as customers contend with a recovery rate that could raise hydro bills.
Further, the company agreed to pay the board chair no more than $120,000 annually and board members no more than $80,000 — figures Energy Minister Greg Rickford had outlined in his directive last month, amid calls for cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess from policy commentators.
"Hydro One's compliance with this directive allows us to move forward as a province. It sets the company on the right course for the future, proving that it can operate as a top-class electricity utility while reining in executive compensation and increasing public transparency," Rickford said in a statement issued Friday morning.
Renewables' Impact on US Wholesale Electricity Prices is clear: DOE analysis shows wind and solar, capacity gains, and natural gas lowering rates, shifting daily patterns, and triggering occasional negative pricing in PJM and ERCOT.
Key Points
DOE data show wind and solar lower wholesale prices, reshape price curves, and cause negative pricing in markets.
✅ Natural gas price declines remain the largest driver of cheaper power
✅ Wind and solar shift seasonal and time-of-day price patterns
✅ Negative wholesale prices appear near high wind and solar output
One of the arguments that's consistently been raised against doing anything about climate change is that it will be expensive. On the more extreme end of the spectrum, there have been dire warnings about plunging standards of living due to skyrocketing electricity prices. The plunging cost of renewables like solar cheaper than gas has largely silenced these warnings, but a new report from the Department of Energy suggests that, even earlier, renewables were actually lowering the price of electricity in the United States.
Plunging prices The report focuses on wholesale electricity prices in the US. Note that these are distinct from the prices consumers actually pay, which includes taxes, fees, payments to support the grid that delivers the electricity, and so on. It's entirely possible for wholesale electricity prices to drop even as consumers end up paying more, and market reforms determine how those changes are passed through. That said, large changes in the wholesale price should ultimately be passed on to consumers to one degree or another.
The Department of Energy analysis focuses on the decade between 2008 and 2017, and it includes an overall analysis of the US market, as well as large individual grids like PJM and ERCOT and, finally, local prices. The decade saw a couple of important trends: low natural gas prices that fostered a rapid expansion of gas-fired generators and the rapid expansion of renewable generation that occurred concurrently with a tremendous drop in price of wind and solar power.
Much of the electricity generated by renewables in this time period would be more expensive than that generated by wind and solar installed today. Not only have prices for the hardware dropped, but the hardware has improved in ways that provide higher capacity factors, meaning that they generate a greater percentage of the maximum capacity. (These changes include things like larger blades on wind turbines and tracking systems for solar panels.) At the same time, operating wind and solar is essentially free once they're installed, so they can always offer a lower price than competing fossil fuel plants.
With those caveats laid out, what does the analysis show? Almost all of the factors influencing the wholesale electricity price considered in this analysis are essentially neutral. Only three factors have pushed the prices higher: the retirement of some plants, the rising price of coal, and prices put on carbon, which only affect some of the regional grids.
In contrast, the drop in the price of natural gas has had a very large effect on the wholesale power price. Depending on the regional grid, it's driven a drop of anywhere from $7 to $53 per megawatt-hour. It's far and away the largest influence on prices over the past decade.
Regional variation and negative prices But renewables have had an influence as well. That influence has ranged from roughly neutral to a cost reduction of $2.2 per MWh in California, largely driven by solar. While the impact of renewables was relatively minor, it is the second-largest influence after natural gas prices, and the data shows that wind and solar are reducing prices rather than increasing them.
The reports note that renewables are influencing wholesale prices in other ways, however. The growth of wind and solar caused the pattern of seasonal price changes to shift in areas of high wind and solar, as seen with solar reshaping prices in Northern Europe as daylight hours and wind patterns shift with the seasons. Similarly, renewables have a time-of-day effect for similar reasons, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today, which also influences the daily timing price changes, something that's not an issue with fossil fuel power.
A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency. Enlarge / A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.
US DOE One striking feature of areas where renewable power is prevalent is that there are occasional cases in which an oversupply of renewable energy produces negative electricity prices in the wholesale market. (In the least-surprising statement in the report, it concludes that "negative prices in high-wind and high-solar regions occurred most frequently in hours with high wind and solar output.") In most areas, these negative prices are rare enough that they don't have a significant influence on the wholesale price.
That's not true everywhere, however. Areas on the Great Plains see fairly frequent negative prices, and they're growing in prevalence in areas like California, the Southwest, and the northern areas of New York and New England, while negative prices in France have been observed in similar conditions. In these areas, negative wholesale prices near solar plants have dropped the overall price by 3%. Near wind plants, that figure is 6%.
None of this is meant to indicate that there are no scenarios where expanded renewable energy could eventually cause wholesale prices to rise. At sufficient levels, the need for storage, backup plants, and grid management could potentially offset their low costs, a dynamic sometimes referred to as clean energy's dirty secret by analysts. But it's clear we have not yet reached that point. And if the prices of renewables continue to drop, then that point could potentially recede fast enough not to matter.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
