Indian Point plant likely to survive ruling

Newfoundland and Labrador electricity rate hike examines a proposed 18.6% increase under the PUB's Rate Stabilization Plan, driven by oil prices at Holyrood, with Consumer Advocate concerns over rate shock and use of RSP balances.

Key Points

A proposed 18.6% July 2017 increase under the RSP, driven by oil prices, now under PUB review for potential mitigation.

✅ PUB flags potential rate shock from proposed adjustment

✅ RSP balances cited to offset increases without depleting fund

✅ Oil-fired Holyrood volatility drives fuel cost uncertainty

How much of a rate hike is reasonable for users of electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador?

That's a question before the Public Utilities Board (PUB) as it examines an application by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which could see consumers pay up to 18.6 per cent more as of July 1, reflecting regional pressures seen in Nova Scotia, where regulators approved a 14% rate hike earlier this year.

"The estimated rate increase for July 2017 is such a significant increase that it may be argued that it would cause rate shock," said the PUB, asking the company to revise its application.

NL Hydro said the price adjustment is part of what happens every year through the Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP), which is used to offset the ups and downs of oil prices.

"The cost of fuel is volatile and as long as we rely on oil-fired generation at Holyrood, customers will continue to be impacted by this electricity price uncertainty," said the company in a statement to CBC News.

It noted that customers received a break from RSP adjustments in 2015 and 2016, even as costs from the Muskrat Falls project begin to be reflected.

The PUB noted that under the rate stabilization plan, prices have gone up or down by about 10 per cent in the past.

The regulatory board said the impact of the latest request would be a 27.6 per cent hike to Newfoundland Power, with "an estimated average end customer impact of 18.6 per cent."

Hydro's estimates are based on an average price for oil of $81.40 per barrel from July 2017 to June 2018, according to the PUB.

'Unacceptable' burden: Consumer Advocate

"To burden ratepayers with an 18 per cent rate increase is unacceptable," said Consumer Advocate Dennis Browne, echoing pushback in Nova Scotia, where the premier urged regulators to reject a 14% hike at the time.

Browne is arguing that there is money in the RSP to reduce the proposed increase, including the possibility of a lump-sum bill credit for customers.

"These ratepayer balances — which, according to NL Power, totals $77.4 million — are not the property of Hydro," he wrote in a letter to the PUB.

"No utility has the right to squirrel away ratepayers' money to be used by that utility for some future purpose. The Board has jurisdiction over those balances," Browne said.

Browne also wants the RSP overhauled so that it can be applied to price fluctuations every quarter, as opposed to annually.

Hydro has expressed concern that depleting the rate stabilization fund would lead to other, more significant, rate increases in the future.

It said several alternatives to mitigate high rates have been provided to the PUB, which has final say, similar to how Manitoba Hydro scaled back a planned increase in the next year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Electricity Imports surge to record levels as EU neighbors bolster grid stability amid Russian strikes, supporting energy security, preventing blackouts, and straining cross-border transmission capacity while Ukraine rebuilds damaged infrastructure and diversifies with renewables.

Key Points

Emergency EU power purchases stabilizing Ukraine’s grid after war damage.

✅ Record 19,000 MWh per day from EU interconnectors

✅ Supports grid stability and blackout prevention

✅ Cost and transmission upgrades challenge sustainability

Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine has extended far beyond the battlefield, with critical infrastructure becoming a target. Ukraine's once-robust energy system has sustained significant damage amid energy ceasefire violations and Russian missile and drone strikes. To cope with these disruptions and maintain power supplies for Ukrainian citizens, the country is turning to record-breaking electricity imports from neighboring European nations.

Prior to the war, Ukraine enjoyed a self-sufficient energy sector, even exporting electricity to neighboring countries. However, targeted attacks on power plants and transmission lines have crippled generation capacity. The situation is particularly dire in eastern and southern Ukraine, where ongoing fighting has caused extensive damage.

Faced with this energy crisis, Ukraine is looking to Europe for a lifeline. The country's energy ministry has announced plans to import a staggering amount of electricity – exceeding 19,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per day – to prepare for winter and stabilize supplies. This surpasses the previous record set in March 2024 and represents a significant increase in Ukraine's reliance on external power sources.

Several European nations are stepping up to support Ukraine. Countries like Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, which maintains quiet energy ties with Russia today, and Moldova have agreed to provide emergency electricity supplies. These imports will help stabilize Ukraine's power grid and prevent widespread blackouts, especially during peak consumption hours.

The reliance on imports, however, presents its own set of challenges. Firstly, the sheer volume of electricity needed puts a strain on the capacity of neighboring grids. Upgrading and expanding transmission infrastructure will be crucial to ensure a smooth flow of electricity. Secondly, the cost of imported electricity can be higher than domestically generated power amid price hikes and instability globally, placing additional pressure on Ukraine's already strained finances.

Beyond these immediate concerns, the long-term implications of relying on external energy sources need to be considered. Ukraine's long-term goal is to rebuild its own energy infrastructure and regain energy independence. International assistance, including energy security support measures, will be crucial in this endeavor. Financial aid and technical expertise can help Ukraine repair damaged power plants, diversify its energy mix through further investment in renewables, and develop more resilient grid infrastructure.

The war in Ukraine has underscored the importance of energy security. A nation's dependence on a single source of energy, be it domestic or foreign, leaves it vulnerable to disruption, as others consider national security and fossil fuels in their own policies. For Ukraine, diversification and building a more resilient energy infrastructure are key takeaways from this crisis.

The international community also has a role to play. Supporting Ukraine's energy sector not only helps the nation weather the current crisis but also strengthens European energy security as a whole, where concerns over Europe's energy nightmare remain pronounced. A stable and independent Ukraine, less reliant on Russian energy, contributes to a more secure and prosperous Europe.

As the war in Ukraine continues, the battle for energy security rages on. While the immediate focus is on keeping the lights on through imports, the long-term goal for Ukraine is to rebuild a stronger, more resilient energy sector that can power the nation's future. The international community's support will be crucial in helping Ukraine achieve this goal.

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

California Utility Spending Bill scrutinizes how ratepayer funds are used by utilities, targeting lobbying, advertising, wildfire prevention cost pass-throughs, and CPUC oversight to curb high electricity bills and increase accountability and transparency statewide.

Key Points

Legislation restricting utilities from using ratepayer money for lobbying and ads, with stronger CPUC oversight.

✅ Bans ratepayer-funded lobbying and political advertising

✅ Expands prohibited utility communications and influence spending

✅ Aims to curb bills, boost transparency, and CPUC accountability

California's legislators are about to vote on a bill that would impose stricter regulations on how utility companies spend the money they collect from ratepayers. This legislation directly responds to the growing discontent among Californians who are already grappling with high electricity bills, as Californians ask why electricity prices are soaring amid wildfire prevention efforts.

Consumer rights groups have been vehemently critical of how utilities have been allocating customer funds, amid growing calls for regulatory action from state officials. They allege that a substantial portion of this money is being funnelled into lobbying efforts and advertising campaigns that yield no direct benefits for the customers themselves.

The proposed bill would significantly broaden the definition of what constitutes prohibited advertising and political influence activities on the part of utility companies, separate from income-based fixed electricity charges proposals that affect rate design. This would effectively restrict the ways in which utilities can utilize customer funds for such purposes.

While consumer advocacy groups have favored the legislation, it has drawn opposition from utility companies and some labor unions, as lawmakers weigh overturning income-based utility charges in parallel debates. Opponents contend that it would hinder utilities' ability to communicate effectively with their customers and advocate for their interests. Additionally, they express concerns that the bill could result in job losses within the utility sector.

The vote on the bill is expected to take place on Monday. The outcome of the vote is uncertain, but it is sure to be a closely watched development for Californians struggling with the burden of high electricity bills, with many wondering about major changes to their electric bills in the near term.

California's Electricity Rates: A Burden for Residents

A recent report by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) revealed that the average Californian household spends a significantly higher amount on electricity compared to the national average. This disparity in electricity rates can be attributed to a number of factors, including the financial costs associated with wildfire prevention measures, investments in renewable energy infrastructure, and maintenance of aging electrical grids, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid.

Examples of Utility Company Spending that Raise Concerns

Consumer rights groups have specifically highlighted instances where utility companies have used customer money to fund lavish executive compensation packages, sponsor professional sports teams, and finance political campaigns. They argue that these expenditures do not provide any tangible benefits to ratepayers and should not be funded through customer bills.

The Need for Accountability and Prioritization

Proponents of the bill believe that the legislation is necessary to ensure that utility companies are held accountable for how they spend customer funds. They believe that the stricter regulations would compel utilities to prioritize investments that directly improve the quality and reliability of electricity services for Californians, alongside discussions of income-based flat-fee utility bills that could reshape rate structures.

The impending vote on the bill underscores the ongoing tension between the need for reliable electricity services and the desire to keep utility rates affordable for Californians. The outcome of the vote is likely to have a significant impact on how utility companies operate in the state and how much Californians pay for their electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Hydro Phone Scam targets small businesses with disconnection threats, prepaid card payments, caller ID spoofing, phishing texts, and door-to-door fraud; hang up, verify your account directly, and never share banking information.

Key Points

A scam where callers threaten disconnection and demand prepaid cards; verify account status directly with Manitoba Hydro.

✅ Hang up and call Manitoba Hydro at 1-888-624-9376 to verify.

✅ Never pay by prepaid cards, gift cards, or crypto.

✅ Hydro will not cut power on one-hour notice.

Manitoba Hydro is warning customers, particularly small business owners, to be wary of high-pressure scammers, as Ontario utilities warn of scams in other provinces, threatening to shut off their electricity.

The callers demand the customer to make immediate payment by a prepaid card. Often, the calls are made in the middle of the day at a busy time, frightening the customer with aggressive threats about disconnection, as hydro disconnections have made headlines elsewhere, says hydro spokesman Bruce Owen.

"They tell them 'we have a truck on the way to cut off your power. If you don't pay in the next hour you're out of luck,'" he said.

"And because these folks have inventory in freezers and they have customers … they're willing to fork over several hundred or even several thousand dollars on a prepaid card to somebody they don't know to keep the lights on."

Maybe the business owners can't recall, with everything happening, including discussions about Hydro One peak rates in Ontario, if they've made their payments on time. They start second-guessing and believing the person on the other line, Owen says.

And they worry about losing thousands of dollars in business if they lose power. So they're more than willing to run out to a store, buy a prepaid debit card and provide the number to the caller.

"Their goal is to manipulate you into sending money before you figure out it's a scam," said Chris McColm, hydro's security and investigations supervisor. "These people are crooks and you should hang up on them."

For any customers that are in arrears, hydro will work with them to resolve the issue, Owen said.

"We do not have to take that extreme measure of cutting off or disconnecting anybody. That's not the business we're in — we don't strong arm people that way," he said.

"Anybody who's threatening to cut off your power with an hour or half-an-hour notice, well it's it's no better than someone waiting around the corner, waiting the club you over the head in the dark of night. That's what they are."

Fraud reports soar

The power utility has recorded a nearly-300 per cent jump in the number of fraud-related complaints this year over 2017. There have been 862 phone, text and e-mail scams and that could still go much higher.

The current statistics from 2018 have only calculated up to Oct. 31. In 2017, there were 221.

That jump in numbers doesn't necessarily mean there are more scammers out there.

It could simply mean people are finally getting wise to fraudsters and reporting it more, Owen says.

"At the same token, we don't hear of everybody who's been taking advantage of because once they've found out that they've been hoodwinked they don't want to tell anybody because they're so embarrassed," he said.

"These scammers can be very convincing and anyone can be victimized," McColm said.

If you are able to think clearly when some high-pressure caller gets you on the line, Owen suggests asking a few simple questions to challenge their legitimacy:

• What street am I on?
• What does my business look like? 
• What's the weather outside right now?

Phone scammers can falsify their caller ID information to make it appear they're calling from a local number, but what you'll find is most of them aren't in Winnipeg or Manitoba and likely not even this country or continent, Owen says.

The key to being safe is simply to never give out banking information, Owen says. It's a message that has been stressed for years and 80-90 per cent of people understand it, but it's that other 10-20 per cent that are still being victimized.And it's not just phone calls. Many other fraud-related complaints to Manitoba Hydro this year concerned unsolicited text messages to customers saying they had been overbilled, or faced retroactive charges elsewhere, and were eligible for a refund.

This scam is also aimed at getting a customer's personal banking information, under the guise of having money put back into their account.

Also, many people, especially seniors living alone, continue to be targeted by aggressive door-to-door fraudsters, and cases like the electricity theft ring in Montreal underscore the risks, McColm says. However, he adds, hydro employees always display photo ID and will never demand to come into a home. 

If you're unsure whether a phone call, text or email is real or a scam, contact Manitoba Hydro at 1-888-624-9376.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Manitoba Clean Electricity Investment will upgrade hydroelectric turbines, expand a 230 kV transmission network, and deliver reliable, affordable low-carbon power, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening grid reliability across Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg River.

Key Points

Joint federal-provincial funding to upgrade hydro turbines and build a 230 kV grid, boosting reliable, low-carbon power.

✅ $314M for new turbines at Pointe du Bois (+52 MW capacity)

✅ $161.6M for 230 kV transmission in Portage la Prairie

✅ Cuts Brandon Generating Station emissions by ~37%

The governments of Canada and Manitoba have announced a joint investment of $475.6 million to strengthen Manitoba’s clean electricity grid that can support neighboring provinces with clean power and ensure continued supply of affordable and reliable low-carbon energy.

This federal-provincial investment provides $314 million for eight new hydroelectric turbines at the 75 MW Pointe du Bois Generating Station on the Winnipeg River, as well as $161.6 million to build a new 230 kV transmission network in the Portage la Prairie area, bolstering power sales to SaskPower and regional reliability.

The $314 million joint investment in the Pointe du Bois Renewable Energy Project includes $114.1 million from the Government of Canada and nearly $200 million from the Government of Manitoba. The joint investment will enable Manitoba Hydro to replace eight generating units that are at the end of their lifecycle, amid looming new generation needs for the province. The new, more efficient units will increase the capacity of the Pointe du Bois generating station by 52 MW.

The $161.6 million joint investment in the Portage Area Capacity Enhancement project includes $70.9 million from the Government of Canada and $90.6 million from the Government of Manitoba. The joint investment will support the construction of a new transmission line to enhance reliability for customers across southwest Manitoba and help Manitoba Hydro meet increasing demand, with projections that demand could double over the next two decades. By decreasing Manitoba’s reliance on its last grid-connected fossil-fuel generating station, this investment will reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the Brandon Generating Station by about 37%.

The federal government’s total contribution of $184.9 million is provided through the Green Infrastructure Stream of the Investing in Canada Plan, alongside efforts to improve interprovincial grid integration such as NB Power agreements with Hydro-Quebec that strengthen regional reliability. This federal funding is conditional on meeting Indigenous consultation requirements, as well as environmental assessment obligations. Including today’s announcement, the Green Infrastructure Stream has supported 38 infrastructure projects in Manitoba, for a total federal contribution of more than $766.8 million and a total provincial contribution of over $658.4 million.

“A key part of our economic plan is making Canada a clean electricity superpower. Today’s announcement in Manitoba will deliver clean, reliable, and affordable electricity to people and businesses across the province—and we will continue working to expand our clean electricity grid and create great careers for people from coast to coast to coast,” said Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.

The federal government will continue to invest in making Canada a clean electricity superpower, supporting provincial initiatives like Hydro-Quebec's fossil-free strategy that complement these investments to ensure Canadians from coast to coast to coast have the affordable and reliable clean electricity they need today and for generations to come.

“Manitoba Hydro is extremely pleased to be receiving this federal funding through the Green Infrastructure Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program. The investments we are making in both these critical infrastructure projects will help provide Manitobans with energy for life and power our province’s economic growth with clean, reliable, renewable hydroelectricity. These projects build on our legacy of investments in renewable energy over the past 100 years, as we work towards a lower carbon future for all Manitobans,” said Jay Grewal, president and chief executive officer of Manitoba Hydro.

About 97% of Manitoba’s electricity is generated from clean hydro, with most of the remaining 3% coming from wind generation. Manitoba’s abundant clean electricity has resulted in Manitobans paying 9.455 ¢/kWh — the second-lowest electricity rate in Canada, though limits on serving new energy-intensive customers have been flagged recently.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News