RONA recognized as energy conservation leader

European Green Deal Electrification accelerates decarbonization via renewables, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and clean industry, backed by sustainable finance, EIB green lending, just transition funds, and energy taxation reform to phase out fossil fuels.

Key Points

An EU plan to replace fossil fuels with renewable electricity in transport, buildings, and industry, supported by green finance.

✅ Doubles electricity's share to cut CO2 and phase out fossil fuels.

✅ Drives EVs, heat pumps, and electrified industry via renewables.

✅ Funded by EIB lending, EU budget, and just transition support.

The European Union is preparing an ambitious plan to completely decarbonize by 2050. Increasing the share of electricity in Europe’s energy system – electricity that will increasingly come from renewable sources - will be at the center of this strategy, aligning with the broader global energy transition under way, the new head of the European Commission’s energy department said yesterday.

This will mean more electric cars, electric heating and electric industry. The idea is that fossil fuels should no longer be a primary energy source, heating homes, warming food or powering cars. In the medium term they should only be used to generate electricity, a shift mirrored by New Zealand's electricity shift efforts, which then powers these things, resulting in less CO2 emissions.

“First assessments show we need to double the share of electricity in energy consumption by 2050,” Ditte Juul-Jørgensen said at an event in Brussels this week, a goal echoed by recent calls to double investment in power systems from world leaders. “We’ve already seen an increase in the last decade, but we need to go further”.

Juul-Jørgensen, who started in her job as director-general of the commission’s energy department in August, has come to the role at a pivotal time for energy. The 2050 decarbonization proposal from the Commission, the EU’s executive branch, is expected to be approved next month by EU national leaders. A veto from Poland that has blocked adoption until now is likely to be overcome if Poland and other Eastern European countries are offered financial assistance from a “just transition fund”, according to EU sources.

Ursula von der Leyen, the incoming President of the Commission, has promised to unveil a “European Green Deal” in her first 100 days in office designed to get the EU to its 2050 goal. Juul-Jørgensen will be working with the incoming EU Energy Commissioner, Kadri Simson, on designing this complex strategy. The overall aim will be to phase out fossil fuels, and increase the use of electricity from green sources, amid trends like oil majors pivoting to electric across Europe today.

“This will be about how do we best make use of electricity to feed into other sectors,” Juul-Jørgensen said. “We need to think about transforming it into other sources, and how to best transport it.”

“But the biggest challenge from what I see today is that of investment and finance - the changes we have to make are very significant.”

Financing problems

The Commission is going to try to tackle the challenges of financing the energy transition with two tools: dedicated climate funding in the EU budget, and dedicated climate lending from the European Investment Bank.

“The EIB will play an increasing role in future. We hope to see agreement [with the EIB board] on that in the coming months so there’s a clear operator in the EIB to support the green transition. We’re looking at something around €400 billion a year.”

The Commission’s proposed dedicated climate spending in the next seven-year budget must still be approved by the 28 EU national governments. Juul-Jørgensen said there is unanimous agreement on the amount: 25% of the budget. But there is disagreement about how to determine what is green spending.

“A lot of work has been ongoing to ensure that when it comes to counting it reflects the reality of the investments,” she said. “We’re working on the taxonomy on sustainable finance - internally identifying sectors contributing to overall climate objectives.”

Electricity pact

Juul-Jørgensen was speaking at an event organized by the the Electrification Alliance, a pact between nine industry organizations to lobby for electricity to be put at the heart of the European green deal. They signed a declaration at the event calling for a variety of measures to be included in the green deal, reflecting debates over a fully renewable grid by 2030 in other jurisdictions, including a change to the EU’s energy taxation regime which incentivizes a switch from fossil fuel to electricity consumption.

“Electrification is the most important solution to turn the vision of a fossil-free Europe into reality,” said Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, one of the signatories, and co-architect of the Paris Agreement.

“We are determined to deliver, but we must be mindful of the different starting points and secure sufficient financing to ensure a fair transition”, said Magnus Hall, President of electricity industry association Eurelectric, another signatory.

The energy taxation issue has been particularly tricky for the EU, since any change in taxation rules requires the unanimous consent of all 28 EU countries. But experts say that current taxation structures are subsidizing fossil fuels and punishing electricity, as recent UK net zero policy changes illustrate, and unless this is changed the European Green Deal can have little effect.

“Yes this issue will be addressed in the incoming commission once it takes up its function,” Juul-Jørgensen said in response to an audience question. “We all know the challenge - the unanimity requirement in the Council - and so I hope that member states will agree to the direction of work and the need to address energy taxation systems to make sure they’re consistent with the targets we’ve set ourselves.”

But some are concerned that the transformation envisioned by the green deal will have negative impacts on some of the most vulnerable members of society, including those who work in the fossil fuel sector.

This week the Centre on Regulation in Europe sent an open letter to Frans Timmermans, the Commission Vice President in charge of climate, warning that they need to be mindful of distributional effects. These worries have been heightened by the yellow vest protests in France, which were sparked by French President Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to increase fuel taxes for non-electric cars.

“The effectiveness of climate action and sustainability policies will be challenged by increasing social and political pressures,” wrote Máximo Miccinilli, the center’s director for energy. “If not properly addressed, those will enhance further populist movements that undermine trust in governance and in the public institutions.”

Miccinilli suggests that more research be done into identifying, quantifying and addressing distributional effects before new policies are put in place to phase out fossil fuels. He proposes launching a new European Observatory for Distributional Effects of the Energy Transition to deal with this.

EU national leaders are expected to vote on the 2050 decarbonization target, building on member-state plans such as Spain's 100% renewable electricity goal by mid-century, at a summit in Brussels on December 12, and Von der Leyen will likely unveil her European Green Deal in March.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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

Hinkley Point C delays highlight EDF cost overruns, energy security risks, and wholesale power prices, complicating UK net zero plans, Sizewell C financing, and small modular reactor adoption across the grid.

Key Points

Delays at EDF's 3.2GW Hinkley Point C push operations to 2031, lift costs to £46bn, and risk pricier UK electricity.

✅ First unit may slip to 2031; second unit date unclear.

✅ LSEG sees 6% wholesale price impact in 2029-2032.

✅ Sizewell C replicates design; SMR contracts expected soon.

Vincent de Rivaz, former CEO of EDF, confidently announced in 2016 the commencement of the UK's first nuclear power station since the 1990s, Hinkley Point C. However, despite milestones such as the reactor roof installation, recent developments have belied this optimism. The French state-owned utility EDF recently disclosed further delays and cost overruns for the 3.2 gigawatt plant in Somerset.

These complications at Hinkley Point C, which is expected to power 6 million homes, have sparked new concerns about the UK's energy strategy and its ambition to decarbonize the grid by 2050.

The UK government's plan to achieve net zero by 2050 includes a significant role for nuclear energy, reflecting analyses that net-zero may not be possible without nuclear and aiming to increase capacity from the current 5.88GW to 24GW by mid-century.

Simon Virley, head of energy at KPMG in the UK, stressed the importance of nuclear energy in transitioning to a net zero power system, echoing industry calls for multiple new stations to meet climate goals. He pointed out that failing to build the necessary capacity could lead to increased reliance on gas.

Hinkley Point C is envisioned as the pioneer in a new wave of nuclear plants intended to augment and replace Britain's existing nuclear fleet, jointly managed by EDF and Centrica. Nuclear power contributed about 14 percent of the UK's electricity in 2022, even as Europe is losing nuclear power across the continent. However, with the planned closure of four out of five plants by March 2028 and rising electricity demand, there is concern about potential power price increases.

Rob Gross, director of the UK Energy Research Centre, emphasized the link between energy security and affordability, highlighting the risk of high electricity prices if reliance on expensive gas increases.

The first 1.6GW reactor at Hinkley Point C, initially set for operation in 2027, may now face delays until 2031, even after first reactor installation milestones were reported. The in-service date for the second unit remains uncertain, with project costs possibly reaching £46bn.

LSEG analysts predict that these delays could increase wholesale power prices by up to 6 percent between 2029 and 2032, assuming the second unit becomes operational in 2033.

Martin Young, an analyst at Investec, warned of the price implications of removing a large power station from the supply side.

In response to these delays, EDF is exploring the extension of its four oldest plants. Jerry Haller, EDF’s former decommissioning director, had previously expressed skepticism about extending the life of the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet, but EDF has since indicated more positive inspection results. The company had already decided to keep the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool plants operational until at least 2026.

Nevertheless, the issues at Hinkley Point C raise doubts about the UK's ability to meet its 2050 nuclear build target of 24GW.

Previous delays at Hinkley were attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, but EDF now cites engineering problems, similar to those experienced at other European power stations using the same technology.

The next major UK nuclear project, Sizewell C in Suffolk, will replicate Hinkley Point C's design, aligning with the UK's green industrial revolution agenda. EDF and the UK government are currently seeking external investment for the £20bn project.

Compared with Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C's financing model involves exposing billpayers to some risk of cost overruns. This, coupled with EDF's track record, could affect investor confidence.

Additionally, the UK government is supporting the development of small modular reactors, while China's nuclear program continues on a steady track, with contracts expected to be awarded later this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US January power generation climbed to 373.2 TWh, EIA data shows, with coal edging natural gas, record wind output, record nuclear generation, rising hydro, and stable utility-scale solar amid higher Henry Hub prices.

Key Points

US January power generation hit 373.2 TWh; coal led gas, wind and nuclear set records, with solar edging higher.

✅ Coal 31.8% share; gas 29.4%; coal output 118.7 TWh, gas 109.6 TWh.

✅ Wind hit record 26.8 TWh; nuclear record 74.6 TWh.

✅ Total generation 373.2 TWh, highest January since 2014.

The US generated 373.2 TWh of power in January, up 7.9% from 345.9 TWh in December and 9.3% higher than the same month in 2017, Energy Information Administration data shows.

The monthly total was the highest amount in January since 377.3 TWh was generated in January 2014.

Coal generation totaled 118.7 TWh in January, up 11.4% from 106.58 TWh in December and up 2.8% from the year-ago month, consistent with projections of a coal-fired generation increase for the first time since 2014. It was also the highest amount generated in January since 132.4 TWh in 2015.

For the second straight month, more power was generated from coal than natural gas, as 109.6 TWh came from gas, up 3.3% from 106.14 TWh in December and up 19.9% on the year.

However, the 118.7 TWh generated from coal was down 9.6% from the five-year average for the month, due to the higher usage of gas and renewables and a rising share of non-fossil generation in the overall mix.

#google#

Coal made up 31.8% of the total US power generation in January, up from 30.8% in December but down from 33.8% in January 2017.

Gas` generation share was at 29.4% in the latest month, with momentum from record gas-fired electricity earlier in the period, down from 30.7% in December but up from 26.8% in the year-ago month.

In January, the NYMEX Henry Hub gas futures price averaged $3.16/MMBtu, up 13.9% from $2.78/MMBtu averaged in December but down 4% from $3.29/MMBtu averaged in the year-ago month.

WIND, NUCLEAR GENERATION AT RECORD HIGHS

Wind generation was at a record-high 26.8 TWh in January, up 29.3% from 22.8 TWh in December and the highest amount on record, according to EIA data going back to January 2001. Wind generated 7.2% of the nation`s power in January, as an EIA summer outlook anticipates larger wind and solar contributions, up from 6.6% in December and 6.1% in the year-ago month.

Utility-scale solar generated 3.3 TWh in January, up 1.3% from 3.1 TWh in December and up 51.6% on the year. In January, utility-scale solar generation made up 0.9% of US power generation, during a period when solar and wind supplied 10% of US electricity in early 2018, flat from December but up from 0.6% in January 2017.

Nuclear generation was also at a record-high 74.6 TWh in January, up 1.3% month on month and the highest monthly total since the EIA started tracking it in January 2001, eclipsing the previous record of 74.3 TWh set in July 2008. Nuclear generation made up 20% of the US power in January, down from 21.3% in December and 21.4% in the year-ago month.

Hydro power totaled 25.4 TWh in January, making up 6.8% of US power generation during the month, up from 6.5% in December but down from 8.2% in January 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Muskrat Falls rate mitigation progresses as Newfoundland and Labrador and Ottawa align under the updated Atlantic Accord, targeting affordable electricity rates through federal involvement, PUB input, and potential financing solutions with Nalcor, Emera, and lenders.

Key Points

An initiative by NL and Ottawa to keep electricity rates affordable via federal support, PUB input, and financing options.

✅ Federal-provincial talks under the updated Atlantic Accord

✅ PUB process integrated for independent oversight

✅ Possible roles for Nalcor, Emera, and project lenders

At the announcement of an updated Atlantic Accord between the provincial and federal governments, Newfoundland and Larbrador Premier Dwight Ball gave notice federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau will be in St. John’s to talk about the cost of Muskrat Falls and how Labrador power flows through Quebec to market.

“We look forward to welcoming Minister Morneau and his team to advance discussions on federal financing and rate mitigation,” read a statement from the premier’s office Tuesday, in response to questions about that coming meeting and federal-provincial work on rate mitigation.

At the announcement, Ball specifically said the plan is to “finalize federal involvement for making sure electricity rates remain affordable,” such as shielding ratepayers from overruns through federal-provincial measures, with Ball and MP Seamus O’Regan trumpeting the provincial-federal relationship.

The provincial and federal governments are not the only two parties involved in provincial power rates and handling of Muskrat Falls, even as electricity users have started paying for the project across Newfoundland and Labrador, but The Telegram is told details of meetings on rate mitigation are not being released, down to the list of attendees.

The premier’s office was asked specifically about the involvement of Nalcor Energy, including a recent financial update during the pandemic, Emera, Goldman, TD or any others involved in project financing. The response was that the plan is not to indicate what is being explored and who might be involved, until there is something more concrete to speak about.

The government’s plan is to have something to feed into the ongoing work of the Public Utilities Board, to develop a more complete response for rate mitigation, including lump-sum credits on electricity bills and other tools, for the PUB’s final report, due in 2020, even as regulators in Nova Scotia weigh a 14% rate hike in a separate proceeding.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Electricity Shortage threatens renewable energy transition as EV adoption and building decarbonization surge; Hydro-Quebec exports, wind power expansion, demand response, and smart grid resilience shape investment and capacity planning.

Key Points

A looming supply gap in central and eastern provinces driven by EVs, heating decarbonization, exports, and limited new hydro.

✅ Hydro-Quebec capacity pressured by exports and new loads

✅ Wind power prioritized; new mega-dams deemed unworkable

✅ Smart meters boost flexibility but raise cyber risk

Quebec and other provinces in central and eastern Canada are heading toward a significant shortage of electricity to respond to the various needs of a transition to renewable energy, and Ontario's energy storage push underscores how supply is tightening across the region.

This is according to Polytechnique Montréal’s Institut de l’énergie Trottier, which published a report titled A Strategic Perspective on Electricity in Central and Eastern Canada last week.

The white paper says that at the current rate, most provinces will be incapable of meeting the electricity needs created by the increase in the number of electric vehicles, including the federal 2035 EV sales mandate that will amplify demand, and the decarbonization of building heating by 2030. “The situation worsens if we consider carbon neutrality objectives of the federal government and some provinces for 2050,” the institute says.

The researchers called on public utilities to immediately review their investment plans for the coming years in light of examples such as B.C.'s power supply challenges that accompany rapid green ambitions.

In a news conference Wednesday, Premier François Legault said the province could indeed be short on electricity as debates over Quebec's EV push continue. “We’re open to exploiting green hydrogen, if the price is good and also based on the electrical capacity we have. Because currently, we predict that in the coming years we’re going to lack electricity, so we must be prudent.”

Quebec is in a better position than other provinces because it is the largest hydroelectricity producer in the country. But that energy source also attracts new clients that have contributed to increased demand over the coming years, including data centres, cryptocurrency miners and greenhouses.

Report co-author Normand Mousseau said that while Hydro-Québec largely has the capacity to meet demand from electric vehicles, even amid EV shortages and wait times for buyers, heating and manufacturers, export contracts to the United States “risk reducing its leeway.”

Hydro-Québec will therefore have to find new sources of electricity, and Mousseau said the answer isn’t new dams.

“The reservoirs give an immense flexibility to the network, but we don’t have the capacity today to flood territories like we have done in the past,” said Mousseau, the institute’s scientific director. “From an environmental viewpoint and a social accessibility one, it’s unworkable.”

The solution would be more wind turbines, he said, adding construction could happen at “very competitive rates” and if there’s a surplus, “we can sell it without issue because other provinces are in an even worse situation than ours,” a reality echoed by eco groups in Northern Ontario sustainability discussions focused on the grid’s future.

The researchers propose solutions based on six themes: regulations, pricing, demand management, data, support for implementation and resilience.

In the resilience category, the report notes that innovative technology like smart meters makes the network more flexible, with pilots such as EV-to-grid integration in Nova Scotia illustrating emerging options, but also increases the risk of cyberattacks. The more extreme weather caused by climate change also increases the risks of damage to infrastructure while at the same time increasing demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News