Carbon capture demonstration project successful: Alstom

Crosbie Hydro Energy Action Plan outlines rate mitigation for Muskrat Falls, leveraging Nalcor oil revenues, export sales, Holyrood savings, and potential Hydro-Quebec taxation to keep Newfoundland and Labrador electricity rates near 14.67 cents/kWh.

Key Points

PC plan to cap post-Muskrat rates by using Nalcor revenues, exports, and savings, with optional Accord funds.

✅ $575.4M yearly to hold rates near 14.67 cents/kWh

✅ Sources: Nalcor oil $231M, Holyrood $150M, rates/dividends $123.4M

✅ Options: export sales, restructuring, Atlantic Accord, HQ tax

Newfoundland and Labrador PC Leader Ches Crosbie says Muskrat Falls won't drive up electricity rates, a goal consistent with an agreement to shield ratepayers from cost overruns, if he's elected premier.

According to Crosbie, who presented the party's Crosbie Hydro Energy Action Plan — acronym CHEAP — at a press conference Monday, $575.4 million is needed per year in order to keep rates from ballooning past 14.67 cents per kilowatt hour.

Here's where he thinks the money could come from:

• Hydro rates and dividends — $123.4 million
• Export sales — $40.1 million
• Nalcor restructuring — $30 million
• Holyrood savings — $150  million
• Nalcor oil revenue — $231 million

The oil money, Crosbie said, isn't going into government coffers but being invested into the offshore which, he said, is a good place for it.

"But the plan from the beginning around Muskrat Falls was that if there was need for it — for mitigation for rates — that those revenues and operating cash flows from Nalcor oil and gas would be available to be recycled into rate mitigation, as reflected in a recent financial update on the pandemic's impact. and that's what we're going to have to do," he said.

According to Crosbie, his numbers come from the preliminary stage of the Public Utilities Board process, even as rate mitigation talks have lacked public details.

This is a recent aerial view of the Muskrat Falls project in central Labrador. The project is more than 90 per cent complete, with first power forecast for late 2019, alongside Ottawa's $5.2B support for the project. (Nalcor)

"I'm telling you this is the best information available to anyone outside of government," he said. "We're working on what we can."

The PUB estimated Nalcor restructuring could save between $10 million and $15 million, according to Crosbie, but he figures there's "enough duplication and overpayment involved in the way things are now set up that we can find $30 million there."

Currently, provincial ratepayers pay about 12 cents per kilowatt hour as electricity users have started paying for Muskrat Falls costs.

Crosbie's $575.4-million figure would put rates at 14.67 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2021, where his plan pledges to keep them.

A recent Public Utilities Board Report says there's a potential $10 million to $15 million in savings from Nalcor, but Crosbie says he can find $30 million. (CBC)

"The promise is that Muskrat Falls, when it comes online — comes in service — will not increase your rates. Between now and when that happens there are rate increases already in the pipeline up to that level of [14.67 cents per kilowatt-hour] … so that is the baseline target rate at which rates will be kept.

"In other words, Muskrat will not drive up prices for electricity to consumers beyond that point."

In addition to those savings, Crosbie's plan outlined two further steps.

"We think it could be done out of the resources that I've just identified now, but if there's a problem with that, and as a temporary measure, we can use a modest amount of the Atlantic Accord review, fiscal review, revenues," he said.

Plan 'nothing new'

Premier Dwight Ball slammed the plan at the House of Assembly on Monday, saying it lacked insight.

"It was a copy and paste exercise," he told reporters. "There's nothing new in that plan. Not at all."

"We're not leaving any stone unturned of where the opportunity would be to actually generate revenue," he said.  "We are genuinely concerned about rate mitigation and we've got to get a plan in place."

Potential to tax Hydro-Québec

Crosbie also said there's potential to tax Hydro-Québec.

According to Crosbie, tax exemptions that expired in 2016 allow the province to tax exports from the Upper Churchill, which, he said, could result in "hundreds of millions or billions" in revenue.

"It's not my philosophy to immediately go and do that because that would generate litigation — who needs more of that? — but we do need to let Quebec know that we're very aware of that, and aware of that opportunity, and invite them to come talk about a whole host of issues," Crosbie said.

Crosbie said the tax would also have to be applied to domestic consumption.

"But so massive is the potential revenue from the Upper Churchill export that there would be ways to mitigate that and negate the effect of that on consumers in the province."

Crosbie said with the Atlantic Accord revenue, he could still present a balanced budget by 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Electric weed-zapping farm robots enable precision agriculture, using autonomous mapping, per-plant targeting, and robotics to reduce pesticides, improve soil health, boost biodiversity, and lower costs with data-driven, selective weeding and seed-planting workflows.

Key Points

Autonomous machines that map fields, electrocute weeds per plant, and plant seeds, cutting pesticides, inputs, and costs.

✅ Precision agriculture: per-plant targeting reduces pesticide use up to 95%.

✅ Autonomous mapping robot surveys 20 hectares per day for weed data.

✅ Electric weeding and seeding improve soil health, biodiversity, and ROI.

On a field in England, three robots have been given a mission: to find and zap weeds with electricity, as advances in digitizing the electrical system continue to modernize power infrastructure, before planting seeds in the cleared soil.

The robots — named Tom, Dick and Harry — were developed by Small Robot Company to rid land of unwanted weeds with minimal use of chemicals and heavy machinery, complementing emerging options like electric tractors that aim to cut on-farm emissions.
The startup has been working on its autonomous weed killers since 2017, and this April launched Tom, its first commercial robot which is now operational on three UK farms. The other robots are still in the prototype stage, undergoing testing.

Small Robot says robot Tom can scan 20 hectares (49 acres) a day, collecting data, with AI-driven analysis guiding Dick, a "crop-care" robot, to zap weeds. Then it's robot Harry's turn to plant seeds in the weed-free soil.

Using the full system, once it is up and running, farmers could reduce costs by 40% and chemical usage by up to 95%, the company says, and integration with virtual power plants could further optimize energy use on electrified farms.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization six million metric tons of pesticides were traded globally in 2018, valued at $38 billion.

"Our system allows farmers to wean their depleted, damaged soils off a diet of chemicals," says Ben Scott-Robinson, Small Robot's co-founder and CEO.

Zapping weeds
Small Robot says it has raised over £7 million ($9.9 million). Scott-Robinson says the company hopes to launch its full system of robots by 2023, which will be offered as a service at a rate of around £400 ($568) per hectare. The monitoring robot is placed at a farm first and the weeding and planting robots delivered only when the data shows they're needed — a setup that ultimately relies on a resilient grid, where research into preventing ransomware attacks is increasingly relevant.

To develop the zapping technology, Small Robot partnered with another UK-based startup, RootWave, while innovations like electricity from snow highlight the breadth of emerging energy tech.

"It creates a current that goes through the roots of the plant through the soil and then back up, which completely destroys the weed," says Scott-Robinson. "We can go to each individual plant that is threatening the crop plants and take it out."

"It's not as fast as it would be if you went out to spray the entire field," he says. "But you have to bear in mind we only have to go into the parts of the field where the weeds are." Plants that are neutral or beneficial to the crops are left untouched.

Small Robot calls this "per plant farming" — a type of precise agriculture where every plant is accounted for and monitored.

A business case
For Kit Franklin, an agricultural engineering lecturer from Harper Adams University, efficiency remains a hurdle, even as utilities use AI to adapt to electricity demands that could support wider on-farm electrification.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the electrical system works," he tells CNN Business. "But you can cover hundreds of hectares a day with a large-scale sprayer ... If we want to go into this really precise weed killing system, we have to realize that there is an output reduction that is very hard to overcome."

But Franklin believes farmers will adopt the technology if they can see a business case.

"There's a realization that farming in an environmentally friendly way is also a way of farming in an efficient way," he says. "Using less inputs, where and when we need them, is going to save us money and it's going to be good for the environment and the perception of farmers."

As well as reducing the use of chemicals, Small Robot wants to improve soil quality and biodiversity.

"If you treat a living environment like an industrial process, then you are ignoring the complexity of it," Scott-Robinson says. "We have to change farming now, otherwise there won't be anything to farm."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Canada EV Tariffs weigh protectionism, import duties, and trade policy against affordable electric vehicles, climate goals, and consumer costs, balancing domestic manufacturing, critical minerals, battery supply chains, and China relations amid US-EU actions.

Key Points

Canada EV Tariffs are proposed duties on Chinese EV imports to protect jobs vs. prices, climate goals, and trade risks.

✅ Shield domestic automakers; counter subsidies

✅ Raise EV prices; slow adoption, climate targets

✅ Spark China retaliation; hit exports, supply chains

Canada, a rising star in critical EV battery minerals, finds itself at a crossroads. The question: should they follow the US and EU and impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), after the U.S. 100% tariff on Chinese EVs set a precedent?

The Allure of Protectionism

Proponents see tariffs as a shield for Canada's auto industry, supported by recent EV assembly deals that put Canada in the race, a vital job creator. They argue that cheaper Chinese EVs, potentially boosted by government subsidies, threaten Canadian manufacturers. Tariffs, they believe, would level the playing field.

Consumer Concerns and Environmental Impact

Opponents fear tariffs will translate to higher prices, deterring Canadians from buying EVs, especially amid EV shortages and wait times already affecting the market. This could slow down Canada's transition to cleaner transportation, crucial for meeting climate goals. A slower EV adoption could also impact Canada's potential as an EV leader.

The Looming Trade War Shadow

Tariffs risk escalating tensions with China, Canada's second-largest trading partner. China might retaliate with tariffs on Canadian exports, jeopardizing sectors like oil and lumber. This could harm the Canadian economy and disrupt critical mineral and battery development, areas where Canada is strategically positioned, even as opportunities to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot continue to emerge across North America.

Navigating a Charged Path

The Canadian government faces a complex decision. Protecting domestic jobs is important, but so is keeping EVs affordable for a greener future and advancing EV sales regulations that shape the market. Canada must carefully consider the potential benefits of tariffs against the risks of higher consumer costs and a potential trade war.

This path forward could involve exploring alternative solutions. Canada could invest in its domestic EV industry, providing incentives for both consumers and manufacturers. Additionally, collaborating with other countries, including Canada-U.S. collaboration as companies turn to EVs, to address China's alleged unfair trade practices might be a more strategic approach.

Canada's decision on EV tariffs will have far-reaching consequences. Striking a balance between protecting its domestic industry and fostering a robust, environmentally friendly transportation sector, and meeting ambitious EV goals set by policymakers, is crucial. Only time will tell which path Canada chooses, but the stakes are high, impacting not just jobs, but also the environment and Canada's position in the global EV race.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Electricity Rate Overhaul proposes a fixed fee and lower per-kWh rates to boost electrification, renewables, and grid reliability, while CPUC weighs impacts on conservation, low-income customers, and time-of-use pricing across the state.

Key Points

A proposal to add fixed fees and cut per-kWh prices to drive electrification, support renewables, and balance grid costs.

✅ Fixed monthly fee plus lower volumetric per-kWh charges

✅ Aims to accelerate EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification

✅ CPUC review weighs equity, conservation, and grid reliability

California is contemplating a significant overhaul to its electricity rate structure that could bring major changes to electric bills statewide, a move that has ignited debate among environmentalists and politicians alike. The proposed modifications, spearheaded by the California Energy Commission (CEC), would introduce a fixed fee on electric bills and lower the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) used.

Motivations for the Change

Proponents of the plan argue that it would incentivize Californians to transition to electric appliances and vehicles, a critical aspect of the state's ambitious climate goals. They reason that a lower per-unit cost would make electricity a more attractive option for applications like home heating and transportation, which are currently dominated by natural gas and gasoline. Additionally, they believe the plan would spur investment in renewable energy sources and distributed generation, ultimately leading to a cleaner electricity grid.

California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The transportation sector is the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and electrification is considered a key strategy for reducing emissions. A 2021 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that electrifying all California vehicles and buildings could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2020 levels.

Concerns and Potential Impacts

Opponents of the proposal, including some consumer rights groups, express apprehensions that it would discourage conservation efforts. They argue that with a lower per-kWh cost, Californians would have less motivation to reduce their electricity consumption. Additionally, they raise concerns that the income-based fixed charges could disproportionately burden low-income households, who may struggle to afford the base charge regardless of their overall electricity consumption.

A recent study by the CEC suggests that the impact on most Californians would be negligible, even as regulators face calls for action over soaring bills from ratepayers across the state. The report predicts that the average household's electricity bill would change by less than $5 per month under the proposed system. However, some critics argue that this study may not fully account for the potential behavioral changes that could result from the new rate structure.

Similar Initiatives and National Implications

California is not the only state exploring changes to its electricity rates to promote clean energy. Hawaii and New York have also implemented similar programs to encourage consumers to use electricity during off-peak hours. These time-varying rates, also known as time-of-use rates, can help reduce strain on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.

The California proposal has garnered national attention as other states grapple with similar challenges in balancing clean energy goals with affordability concerns amid soaring electricity prices in California and beyond. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. power sector.

The Road Ahead

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is reviewing the proposal and anticipates making a decision later this year, with a potential income-based flat-fee structure under consideration. The CPUC will likely consider the plan's potential benefits and drawbacks, including its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, electricity costs for consumers, and the overall reliability of the grid, even as some lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in the legislature.

The decision on California's electricity rates is merely one piece of the puzzle in the fight against climate change. However, it is a significant one, with the potential to shape the state's energy landscape for years to come, including the future of residential rooftop solar markets and investments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News