Washington wants rebate on EVs

Alberta Electricity Peak Demand surged to 10,638 MW, as AESO reported record summer load from air conditioning, Stampede visitors, and heatwave conditions, with ample generation capacity, stable grid reliability, and conservation urged during 5-7 p.m.

Key Points

It is the record summer power load in Alberta, reaching 10,638 MW, with evening conservation urged by AESO.

✅ Record 10,638 MW at 4 pm; likely to rise this week

✅ Drivers: A/C use, heat, Stampede visitors

✅ AESO reports ample capacity; conserve 5-7 pm

Consumer use hit 10,638 MW, blowing past a previous high of 10,520 MW set on July 9, 2015, said the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO).

“We hit a new summer peak and it’s likely we’ll hit higher peaks as the week progresses,” said AESO spokeswoman Tara De Weerd.

“We continue to have ample supply, and as Alberta's electricity future trends toward more wind, our generators are very confident there aren’t any issues.”

That new peak was set at 4 p.m. but De Weerd said it was likely to be exceeded later in the day.

Heightened air conditioner use is normally a major driver of such peak electricity consumption, said De Weerd.

She also said Calgary’s big annual bash is also likely playing a role.

“It’s the beginning of Stampede, you have an influx of visitors so you’ll have more people using electricity,” she said.

Alberta’s generation capacity is 16,420 MW, said the AESO, with wind power increasingly outpacing coal in the province today.

There are no plans, she said, for any of the province’s electricity generators to shut down any of their plants for maintenance or other purposes in the near future as demand rises.

The summer peak is considerably smaller than that reached in the depths of Alberta’s winter.

Alberta’s winter peak usage was recorded last year and was 11,458 MW.

Though the province’s capacity isn’t being strained by the summer heat, De Weerd still encouraged consumers to go easy during the peak use time of the day, between 5 and 7 p.m.

“We don’t have to be running all of our appliances at once,” she said.

Alberta exports an insignificant amount of electricity to Montana, B.C. and Saskatchewan, where demand recently set a new record.

The weather forecast calls for temperatures to soar above 30C through the weekend.

In northern Canada, Yukon electricity demand recently hit a record high, underscoring how extreme temperatures can strain systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Hydro Debt Load surges past $19.2B as the Crown corporation faces shrinking net income, restructuring costs, and PUB rate decisions, driven by Bipole III, Keeyask construction, aging infrastructure, and rising interest rate risks.

Key Points

Manitoba Hydro Debt Load refers to the utility's escalating borrowings exceeding $19B, pressuring rates and finances.

✅ Debt rose to $19.2B; projected near $25B within five years.

✅ Major drivers: Bipole III, Keeyask, aging assets, restructuring.

✅ Rate hikes sought; PUB approved 3.6% vs 7.9% request.

Manitoba Hydro's debt load now exceeds $19 billion as the provincial Crown corporation grapples with a shrinking net income amid ongoing efforts to slay costs.

The utility's annual report, to be released publicly on Tuesday, also shows its total consolidated net income slumped from $71 million in 2016-2017 to $37 million in the last fiscal year, mirroring a Hydro One profit drop as electricity revenue fell.

It said efforts to restructure the utility and reduce costs are partly to blame for the $34 million drop in year-over-year income.

These earnings come nowhere close, however, to alleviating Hydro's long-term debt problem, a dynamic also seen in a BC Hydro deferred costs report about customer exposure. The figure is pegged at $19.2 billion this fiscal year, up from $16.1 billion the previous year and $14.2 billion in 2016.

The utility projects its debt will grow to about $25 billion in the next five years. Its largest expenses include finishing the Bipole III line, working on the Keeyask Generating System that is halfway done and rebuilding aging wood poles and substations, the report said.

"This level of debt increases the potential financial exposure from risks facing the corporation and is a concern for both

the corporation and our customers who may be exposed to higher rate increases in the event of rising interest rates, a prolonged drought or a major system failure," outgoing president and CEO Kelvin Shepherd wrote.

The income drop is primarily a result of the $50 million spent in the form of restructuring charges associated with the utility's efforts to streamline the organization and drive down costs, amid NDP criticism of Hydro changes related to government policy.

Those efforts included the implementation of buyouts for employees through what the utility dubbed its "voluntary departure program."

Among the changes, Manitoba Hydro reduced its workforce by 800 employees, which is expected to save the utility over $90 million per year. It also reduced its management positions by 26 per cent, a Monday news release said, while Hydro One leadership upheaval in Ontario drove its shares down during comparable governance turmoil.

To improve its financial situation, Hydro has applied for rate increases, even as the Consumers Coalition pushes to have the proposal rejected. The Public Utilities Board offered a 3.6 per cent average rate hike, instead of the 7.9 per cent jump the utility asked for.

In May, when the PUB rendered its decision, it made several recommendations as an alternative to raising rates, including receiving a share of carbon tax revenue and asking the government to help pay for Bipole III.

Hydro is projecting a net income of $70 million for 2018-2019, which includes the impact of the recent rate increase. That total reflects an approximately 20 per cent reduction in net income from 2017-18 after restructuring costs are calculated.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Wave Energy Converters can deliver marine power to the grid, with DOE-backed PacWave enabling offshore testing, robust designs, and renewable electricity from oscillating waves to decarbonize coastal communities and replace diesel in remote regions.

Key Points

Wave energy converters are devices that transform waves' oscillatory motion into electricity for the grid or loads.

✅ DOE's PacWave enables full-scale, grid-connected offshore testing.

✅ Multiple designs convert oscillating motion into torque and power.

✅ Ideal for islands, microgrids, and replacing diesel generation.

Waves off the coast of the U.S. could generate 2.64 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity per year — that’s about 64% of last year’s total utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S. We won’t need that much, but one day experts do hope that wave energy will comprise about 10-20% of our electricity mix, alongside other marine energy technologies under development today.

“Wave power is really the last missing piece to help us to transition to 100% renewables, ” said Marcus Lehmann, co-founder and CEO of CalWave Power Technologies, one of a number of promising startups focused on building wave energy converters.

But while scientists have long understood the power of waves, it’s proven difficult to build machines that can harness that energy, due to the violent movement and corrosive nature of the ocean, combined with the complex motion of waves themselves, even as a recent wave and tidal market analysis highlights steady advances.

″Winds and currents, they go in one direction. It’s very easy to spin a turbine or a windmill when you’ve got linear movement. The waves really aren’t linear. They’re oscillating. And so we have to be able to turn this oscillatory energy into some sort of catchable form,” said Burke Hales, professor of cceanography at Oregon State University and chief scientist at PacWave, a Department of Energy-funded wave energy test site off the Oregon Coast. Currently under construction, PacWave is set to become the nation’s first full-scale, grid-connected test facility for these technologies, a milestone that parallels U.K. wind power lessons on scaling new industries, when it comes online in the next few years.

“PacWave really represents for us an opportunity to address one of the most critical barriers to enabling wave energy, and that’s getting devices into the open ocean,” said Jennifer Garson, Director of the Water Power Technologies Office at the U.S. Department of Energy.

At the beginning of the year, the DOE announced $25 million in funding for eight wave energy projects to test their technology at PacWave, as offshore wind forecasts underscore the growing investor interest in ocean-based energy. We spoke with a number of these companies, which all have different approaches to turning the oscillatory motion of the waves into electrical power.

Different approaches
Of the eight projects, Bay Area-based CalWave received the largest amount, $7.5 million. 

″The device we’re testing at PacWave will be a larger version of this,” said Lehmann. The x800, our megawatt-class system, produces enough power to power about 3,000 households.”

CalWave’s device operates completely below the surface of the water, and as waves rise and fall, surge forward and backward, and the water moves in a circular motion, the device moves too. Dampers inside the device slow down that motion and convert it into torque, which drives a generator to produce electricity, a principle mirrored in some wind energy kite systems as they harvest aerodynamic forces.

“And so the waves move the system up and down. And every time it moves down, we can generate power, and then the waves bring it back up. And so that oscillating motion, we can turn into electricity just like a wind turbine,” said Lehmann.

Another approach is being piloted by Seattle-based Oscilla Power, which was awarded $1.8 million from the DOE, and is getting ready to deploy its wave energy converter off the coast of Hawaii, at the U.S. Navy Wave Energy Test site.

Oscilla Power’s device is composed of two parts. One part floats on the surface and moves with the waves in all directions — up and down, side to side and rotationally. This float is connected to a large, ring-shaped structure which hangs below the surface, and is designed to stay relatively steady, much like how underwater kites leverage a stable reference to generate power. The difference in motion between the float and the ring generates force on the connecting lines, which is used to rotate a gearbox to drive a generator.

″The system that we’re deploying in Hawaii is what we call the Triton-C. This is a community-scale system,” said Balky Nair, CEO of Oscilla Power. “It’s about a third of the size of our flagship product. It’s designed to be 100 kilowatt rated, and it’s designed for islands and small communities.”

Nair is excited by wave energy’s potential to generate electricity in remote regions, which currently rely on expensive and polluting diesel imports to meet their energy needs when other renewables aren’t available, and similar tidal energy for remote communities efforts in Canada point to viable models. Before wave energy is adopted at-scale, many believe we’ll see wave energy replacing diesel generators in off-the-grid communities.

A third company, C-Power, based in Charlottesville, Virginia, was awarded more than $4 million to test its grid-scale wave energy converter at PacWave. But first, the company wants to commercialize its smaller scale system, the SeaRAY, which is designed for lower-power applications. 

″Think about sensors in the ocean, research, metocean data gathering, maybe it’s monitoring or inspection,” said C-Power CEO Reenst Lesemann on the initial applications of his device.

The SeaRAY consists of two floats and a central body, the nacelle, which contains the drivetrain. As waves pass by, the floats bob up and down, rotating about the nacelle and turning their own respective gearboxes which power the electric generators.

Eventually, C-Power plans to scale up its SeaRAY so that it’s capable of satellite communications and deep water deployments, before building a larger system, called the StingRAY, for terrestrial electricity generation.

Meanwhile, one Swedish company, Eco Wave Power, is taking another approach completely, eschewing offshore technologies in favor of simpler wave power devices that can be installed on breakwaters, piers, and jetties.

“All the expensive conversion machinery, instead of being inside the floaters like in the competing technologies, is on land just like a regular power station. So basically this enables a very low installation, operation, and maintenance cost,” explained CEO Inna Braverman.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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

BC Hydro SAP Oversight Report assesses B.C. Utilities Commission findings on misleading testimony, governance failures, public funds oversight, IT project risk, compliance gaps, audit controls, ratepayer impacts, and regulatory accountability in major enterprise software decisions.

Key Points

A summary of BCUC findings on BC Hydro's SAP IT project oversight, governance lapses, and regulatory compliance.

✅ BCUC probed testimony, cost overruns, and governance failures

✅ Project split to avoid scrutiny; incomplete records and late corrections

✅ Reforms pledged: stronger business cases, compliance, audit controls

B.C. Hydro misled the province’s independent regulator about an expensive technology program, thereby avoiding scrutiny on how it spent millions of dollars in public money, according to a report by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The Crown power corporation gave inaccurate testimony to regulators about the software it had chosen, called SAP, for an information technology project that has cost $197 million, said the report.

“The way the SAP decision was made prevented its appropriate scrutiny by B.C. Hydro’s board of directors and the BCUC, reflecting governance risks seen in Manitoba Hydro board changes in other jurisdictions,” the commission found.

“B.C. Hydro’s CEO and CFO and its (audit and risk management board committee) members did not exhibit good business judgment when reviewing and approving the SAP decision without an expenditure approval or business case, highlighting how board upheaval at Hydro One can carry market consequences.”

The report was the result of a complaint made in 2016 by then-opposition NDP MLA Adrian Dix, who alleged B.C. Hydro lied to the regulatory commission to try to get approval for a risky IT project in 2008 that then went over budget and resulted in the firing of Hydro’s chief information officer.

The commission spent two years investigating. Its report outlined how B.C. Hydro split the IT project into smaller components to avoid scrutiny, failed to produce the proper planning document when asked, didn’t disclose cost increases of up to $38 million, reflecting pressures seen at Manitoba Hydro's debt across the sector, gave incomplete testimony and did not quickly correct the record when it realized the mistakes.

“Essentially all of the things I asserted were substantiated, and so I’m pleased,” Dix, who is now minister of health, said on Monday. “I think ratepayers can be pleased with it, because even though it was an elaborate process, it involves hundreds of millions of spending by a public utility and it clearly required oversight.”

The BCUC stopped short of agreeing with Dix’s allegation that the errors were deliberate. Instead it pointed toward a culture at B.C. Hydro of confusion, misunderstanding and fear of dealing with the independent regulatory process.

“Therefore, the panel finds that there was a culture of reticence to inform the BCUC when there was doubt about something, even among individuals that understood or should have understood the role of the BCUC, a pattern that can fuel Hydro One investor concerns in comparable markets,” read the report.

“Because of this doubt and uncertainty among B.C. Hydro staff, the panel finds no evidence to support a finding that the BCUC was intentionally misled. The panel finds B.C. Hydro’s culture of reticence to be inappropriate.”

By law, B.C. Hydro is supposed to get approval by the commission for rate changes and major expenditures. Its officials are often put under oath when providing information.

B.C. Hydro apologized for its conduct in 2016. The Crown corporation said Monday it supports the commission’s findings and has made improvements to management of IT projects, including more rigorous business case analyses.

“We participated fully in the commission’s process and acknowledged throughout the inquiry that we could have performed better during the regulatory hearings in 2008,” said spokesperson Tanya Fish.

“Since then, we have taken steps to ensure we meet the highest standards of openness and transparency during regulatory proceedings, including implementing a (thorough) awareness program to support staff in providing transparent and accurate testimony at all times during a regulatory process.”

The Ministry of Energy, which is responsible for B.C. Hydro, said in a statement it accepts all of the BCUC recommendations and will include the findings as part of a review it is conducting into Hydro’s operations and finances, including its deferred operating costs for context, and regulatory oversight.

Dix, who is now grappling with complex IT project management in his Health Ministry, said the lessons learned by B.C. Hydro and outlined in the report are important.

“I think the report is useful reading on all those scores,” he said. “It’s a case study in what shouldn’t happen in a major IT project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Germany renewable energy milestone 2019 saw wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass outproduce coal and nuclear, as low gas prices and high CO2 costs under the EU ETS reshaped the electricity mix, per Fraunhofer ISE.

Key Points

It marks H1 2019 when renewables supplied 47.3% of Germany's electricity, surpassing coal and nuclear.

✅ Driven by high CO2 prices and cheap natural gas

✅ Wind and solar output rose; coal generation declined sharply

✅ Flexible gas plants outcompeted inflexible coal units

In Lippendorf, Saxony, the energy supplier EnBW is temporarily taking part of a coal-fired power plant offline. Not because someone ordered it — it simply wasn't paying off. Gas prices are low, CO2 prices are high, and with many hours of sunshine and wind, renewable methods are producing a great deal of electricity as part of Germany's energy transition now reshaping operations. And in the first half of the year there was plenty of sun and wind.

The result was a six-month period in which renewable energy sources, a trend echoed by the EU wind and solar record across the bloc, produced more electricity than coal and nuclear power plants together. For the first time 47.3% of the electricity consumers used came from renewable sources, while 43.4% came from coal-fired and nuclear power plants.

In addition to solar and wind power, renewable sources also include hydropower and biomass. Gas supplied 9.3%, reflecting how renewables are crowding out gas across European power markets, while the remaining 0.4% came from other sources, such as oil, according to figures published by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in July.

Fabian Hein from the think tank Agora Energiewende stresses that the situation is only a snapshot in time, with grid expansion woes still shaping outcomes. For example, the first half of 2019 was particularly windy and wind power production rose by around 20% compared to the first half of 2018.

Electricity production from solar panels rose by 6%, natural gas by 10%, while the share of nuclear power in German electricity consumption has remained virtually unchanged despite a nuclear option debate in climate policy.

Coal, on the other hand, declined. Black coal energy production fell by 30% compared to the first half of 2018, lignite fell by 20%. Some coal-fired power plants were even taken off the grid, even as coal still provides about a third of Germany's electricity. It is difficult to say whether this was an effect of the current market situation or whether this is simply part of long-term planning, says Hein.

Activists storm German mine in anti-coal protest

It is clear, however, that an increased CO2 price has made the ongoing generation of electricity from coal more expensive. Gas-fired power plants also emit CO2, but less than coal-fired power plants. They are also more efficient and that's why gas-fired power plants are not so strongly affected by the CO2 price

The price is determined at a European level and covers power plants and energy intensive industries in Europe. Other areas, such as heating or transport are not covered by the CO2 price scheme. Since a reform of CO2 emissions trading in 2017, the price has risen sharply. Whereas in September 2016 it was just over €5 ($5.6), by the end of June 2019 it had climbed to over €26.

Ups and downs

Gas as a raw material is generally more expensive than coal. But coal-fired power plants are more expensive to build. This is why operators want to run them continuously. In times of high demand, and therefore high prices, gas-fired power plants are generally started up, as seen when European power demand hit records during recent heatwaves, since it is worth it at these times.

Gas-fired power plants can be flexibly ramped up and down. Coal-fired power plants take 11 hours or longer to get going. That's why they can't be switched on quickly for short periods when prices are high, like gas-fired power plants. In the first half of the year, however, coal-fired power plants were also ramped up and down more often because it was not always worthwhile to let the power plant run around the clock.

Because gas prices were particularly low in the first half of 2019, some gas-fired power plants were more profitable than coal-fired plants. On June 29, 2019, the gas price at the Dutch trading point TTF was around €10 per megawatt hour. A year earlier, it had been almost €20. This is partly due to the relatively mild winter, as there is still a lot of gas in reserve, confirmed a spokesman for the Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industries (BDEW). There are also several new export terminals for liquefied natural gas. Additionally, weaker growth and trade wars are slowing demand for gas. A lot of gas comes to Europe, where prices are still comparatively high, reported the Handelsblatt newspaper.

The increase in wind and solar power and the decline in nuclear power have also reduced CO2 emissions. In the first half of 2019, electricity generation emitted around 15% less CO2 than in the same period last year, reported BDEW. However, the association demands that the further expansion of renewable energies should not be hampered. The target of 65% renewable energy can only be achieved if the further expansion of renewable energy sources is accelerated.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News