Ontario delays deadline for final nuclear bids

Siwash Creek Hydroelectric Project faces downsizing under a BC Hydro power purchase agreement, with run-of-river generation, high grid interconnection costs, First Nations partnership, and surplus electricity from Site C reshaping clean energy procurement.

Key Points

A downsized run-of-river plant in BC, co-owned by Kanaka Bar and Green Valley, selling power via a BC Hydro PPA.

✅ Approved at 500 kW under a BC Hydro clean-energy program

✅ Grid interconnection initially quoted at $2.1M

✅ Joint venture: Kanaka Bar and Green Valley Power

A small run-of-river hydroelectric project recently selected by B.C. Hydro for a power purchase agreement may no longer be financially viable.

The Siwash Creek project was originally conceived as a two-megawatt power plant by the original proponent Chad Peterson, who holds a 50-per-cent stake through Green Valley Power, with the Kanaka Bar Indian Band holding the other half.

The partners were asked by B.C. Hydro to trim the capacity back to one megawatt, but by the time the Crown corporation announced its approval, it agreed to only half that — 500 kilowatts — under its Standing Order clean-energy program.

“Hydro wanted to charge us $2.1 million to connect to the grid, but then they said they could reduce it if we took a little trim on the project,” said Kanaka Bar Chief Patrick Michell.

The revenue stream for the band and Green Valley Power has been halved to about $250,000 a year. The original cost of running the $3.7-million plant, including financing, was projected to be $273,000 a year, according to the Kanaka Bar economic development plan.

“By our initial forecast, we will have to subsidize the loan for 20 years,” said Michell. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

The Kanaka Band has already invested $450,000 in feasibility, hydrology and engineering studies, with a similar investment from Green Valley.

B.C. Hydro announced it would pursue five purchase agreements last March with five First Nations projects — including Siwash Creek — including hydro, solar and wind energy projects, as two new generating stations were being commissioned at the time. A purchase agreement allows proponents to sell electricity to B.C. Hydro at a set price.

However, at least ten other “shovel-ready” clean energy projects may be doomed while B.C. Hydro completes a review of its own operations and its place in the energy sector, where legal outcomes like the Squamish power project ruling add uncertainty, including B.C.’s future power needs.

With the 1,100-megawatt Site C Dam planned for completion in 2024, and LNG demand cited to justify it, B.C. Hydro now projects it will have a surplus of electricity until the early 2030s.

Even if British Columbians put 300,000 electric vehicles on the road over the next 12 years, amid BC Hydro’s first call for power, they will require only 300 megawatts of new capacity, the company said.

A long-term surplus could effectively halt all small-scale clean energy development, according to Clean Energy B.C., even as Hydro One’s U.S. coal plant remains online in the region.

“(B.C. Hydro) dropped their offer down to 500 kilowatts right around the time they announced their review,” said Michell. “So we filled out the paperwork at 500 kilowatts and (B.C. Hydro) got to make its announcement of five projects.”

In the new few weeks, Kanaka and Green Valley will discuss whether they can move forward with a new financial model or shelve the project, he said.

B.C. Hydro declined to comment on the rationale for downsizing Siwash Creek’s power purchase agreement.

The Kanaka Bar Band successfully operates a 49.9-megawatt run-of-river plant on Kwoiek Creek with partners Innergex Renewable Energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Methane Hydrate CO2 Sequestration uses carbon capture and nitrogen injection to swap gases in seafloor hydrates along the Gulf of Mexico, releasing methane for electricity while storing CO2, according to new simulation research.

Key Points

A method injecting CO2 and nitrogen into hydrates to store CO2 while releasing methane for power.

✅ Nitrogen aids CO2-methane swap in hydrate cages, speeding sequestration

✅ Gulf Coast proximity to emitters lowers transport and power costs

✅ Revenue from methane electricity could offset carbon capture

The world is quickly realizing it may need to actively pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stave off the ill effects of climate change. Scientists and engineers have proposed various carbon capture techniques, but most would be extremely expensive—without generating any revenue. No one wants to foot the bill.

One method explored in the past decade might now be a step closer to becoming practical, as a result of a new computer simulation study. The process would involve pumping airborne CO2 down into methane hydrates—large deposits of icy water and methane right under the seafloor, beneath water 500 to 1,000 feet deep—where the gas would be permanently stored, or sequestered. The incoming CO2 would push out the methane, which would be piped to the surface and burned to generate electricity, whether sold locally or via exporters like Hydro-Que9bec to help defray costs, to power the sequestration operation or to bring in revenue to pay for it.

Many methane hydrate deposits exist along the Gulf of Mexico shore and other coastlines. Large power plants and industrial facilities that emit CO2 also line the Gulf Coast, where EPA power plant rules could shape deployment, so one option would be to capture the gas directly from nearby smokestacks, keeping it out of the atmosphere to begin with. And the plants and industries themselves could provide a ready market for the electricity generated.

A methane hydrate is a deposit of frozen, latticelike water molecules. The loose network has many empty, molecular-size pores, or “cages,” that can trap methane molecules rising through cracks in the rock below. The computer simulation shows that pushing out the methane with CO2 is greatly enhanced if a high concentration of nitrogen is also injected, and that the gas swap is a two-step process. (Nitrogen is readily available anywhere, because it makes up 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere.) In one step the nitrogen enters the cages; this destabilizes the trapped methane, which escapes the cages. In a separate step, the nitrogen helps CO2 crystallize in the emptied cages. The disturbed system “tries to reach a new equilibrium; the balance goes to more CO2 and less methane,” says Kris Darnell, who led the study, published June 27 in the journal Water Resources Research. Darnell recently joined the petroleum engineering software company Novi Labs as a data scientist, after receiving his Ph.D. in geoscience from the University of Texas, where the study was done.

A group of labs, universities and companies had tested the technique in a limited feasibility trial in 2012 on Alaska’s North Slope, where methane hydrates form in sandstone under deep permafrost. They sent CO2 and nitrogen down a pipe into the hydrate. Some CO2 ended up being stored, and some methane was released up the same pipe. That is as far as the experiment was intended to go. “It’s good that Kris [Darnell] could make headway” from that experience, says Ray Boswell at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, who was one of the Alaska experiment leaders but was not involved in the new study. The new simulation also showed that the swap of CO2 for methane is likely to be much more extensive—and to happen quicker—if CO2 enters at one end of a hydrate deposit and methane is collected at a distant end.

The technique is somewhat similar in concept to one investigated in the early 2010s by Steven Bryant and others at the University of Texas. In addition to numerous methane hydrate deposits, the Gulf Coast has large pools of hot, salty brine in sedimentary rock under the coastline. In this system, pumps would send CO2 down into one end of a deposit, which would force brine into a pipe that is placed at the other end and leads back to the surface. There the hot brine would flow through a heat exchanger, where heat could be extracted and used for industrial processes or to generate electricity, supporting projects such as electrified LNG in some markets. The upwelling brine also contains some methane that could be siphoned off and burned. The CO2 dissolves into the underground brine, becomes dense and sinks further belowground, where it theoretically remains.

Either system faces big practical challenges, and building shared CO2 storage hubs to aggregate captured gas is still evolving. One is creating a concentrated flow of CO2; the gas makes up only .04 percent of air, and roughly 10 percent of the smokestack emission from a typical power plant or industrial facility. If an efficient methane hydrate or brine system requires an input that is 90 percent CO2, for example, concentrating the gas will require an enormous amount of energy—making the process very expensive. “But if you only need a 50 percent concentration, that could be more attractive,” says Bryant, who is now a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Calgary. “You have to reduce the [CO2] capture cost.”

Another major challenge for the methane hydrate approach is how to collect the freed methane, which could simply seep out of the deposit through numerous cracks and in all directions. “What kind of well [and pipe] structure would you use to grab it?” Bryant asks.

Given these realities, there is little economic incentive today to use methane hydrates for sequestering CO2. But as concentrations rise in the atmosphere and the planet warms further, and as calls for an electric planet intensify, systems that could capture the gas and also provide energy or revenue to run the process might become more viable than techniques that simply pull CO2 from the air and lock it away, offering nothing in return.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Energy Price Surge is driving up electricity and gas costs, inflation, and cost of living across the EU, prompting tax cuts, price caps, subsidies, and household support measures in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

Key Points

A surge in EU gas and electricity costs driving inflation and prompting government subsidies, tax cuts, and price caps.

✅ Low-income EU households now spend 50-70 percent more on energy.

✅ Governments deploy tax cuts, price caps, and direct subsidies.

✅ Gas-dependent power markets drive electricity price spikes.

Higher energy prices, including for natural gas, are pushing up electricity prices and the cost of living for households across the EU, prompting governments to cut taxes and provide financial support to the tune of several billion euros.

In the United Kingdom, households are bracing for high winter energy bills this season.

A series of reports published by Cambridge Econometrics in October and November 2022 found that households in EU countries are spending much more on energy than in 2020 and that governments are spending billions of euros to help consumers pay bills and cut taxes.

In France, for example, the poorest households now spend roughly one-third more on energy than in 2020. Between August 2020 and August 2022, household energy prices increased by 37 percent, while overall inflation increased by 9.2 percent.

“We estimate that the increase in household energy prices make an average French household €410 worse off in 2022 compared to 2020, mostly due to higher gas prices,” said the report.

In response to rising energy prices, the French government has adopted price caps and support measures forecast to cost over €71 billion, equivalent to 2.9 percent of French GDP, according to the U.K.-based consultancy.

In Italy, fossil fuels alone were responsible for roughly 30 percent of the country’s annual rate of inflation during spring 2022, according to Cambridge Econometrics. Unlike in other European countries, retail electricity prices have outpaced other energy prices in Italy and were 112 percent higher in July 2022 than in August 2020, the report found. Over the same time period, retail petrol prices were up 14 percent, diesel up 22 percent, and natural gas up 42 percent.

We estimate that households in the lowest-income quintile now spend about 50 percent more on energy than in 2020.

“We estimate that before government support, an average Italian household will be spending around €1,400 more on energy and fuel bills this year than in 2020,” the report said. “Low-income households are worse affected by the increasing energy prices: we estimate that households in the lowest-income quintile now spend about 50 percent more on energy than in 2020.”

Electricity production in Italy is dominated by natural gas, which has also led to a spike in wholesale electricity prices. In 2010, natural gas accounted for 50 percent of all electricity production. The share of natural gas fell to 33 percent in 2014, but then rose again, reaching 48 percent in 2021, and 56 percent in the first half of 2022, according to the report, as gas filled the gap of record low hydro power production in 2022.

In Spain, where electricity prices have seen extreme spikes, low-income households are now spending an estimated 70% more on energy than in 2020, according to Cambridge Econometrics.

Low-income squeeze
In Spain, low-income households are now spending an estimated 70% more on energy than in 2020, according to Cambridge Econometrics. It noted that the Spanish government has intervened heavily in energy markets by cutting taxes, introducing cash transfers for households, and capping the price of natural gas for power generators. The latter has led to lower electricity prices than in many other EU countries.

These support measures are forecast to cost the Spanish government over €35 billion, equivalent to nearly 3 percent of Spain’s GDP. Yet consumers will still feel the burden of higher costs of living, and rolling back electricity prices may prove difficult in the near term.

In March, electricity prices alone were responsible for 45 percent of year-on-year inflation in Spain but prices have since fallen as a result of government intervention, Cambridge Econometrics said. Between May and July, fossil fuels prices accounted for 19-25 percent of the overall inflation rate, and electricity prices for 16 percent.

Support measures
Rising inflation is also a real challenge in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, where German power prices have surged this year, adding pressure. Also there, higher gas prices are to blame.

“We estimate that the increase in energy prices currently make an average household €735 worse off in 2022 compared to 2020, mostly due to higher gas prices,” Cambridge Econometrics said, in a report focused on Germany.

The German government has introduced a number of support measures in order to help households, businesses and industry to pay energy bills, amid rising heating and electricity costs for consumers, including price caps that are expected to take effect in March next year. Moreover, households’ energy bills for December this year will be paid by the state. According to the report, these interventions will mitigate the impact of higher prices “to some extent”, but the aid measures are forecast to cost the government nearly 5 percent of GDP.

Fossil-fuel effect
In addition to gas, higher coal prices have also pushed up inflation in some countries, and U.S. electricity prices have reached multi-decade highs as inflation endures.

In Poland, which is heavily dependent on coal for electricity generation, fossil fuels accounted for roughly 40 percent of Poland’s overall year-on-year inflation rate in June 2022, which stood at over 14 percent, the consultancy said.

The price of household coal, which is widely used in heating Polish homes, increased by 157 percent between August 2021 and August 2022.

Higher energy prices in Poland are partly due to Polish and EU sanctions against Russian gas and coal. Other drivers are the weakening of the Polish zloty against the U.S. dollar and the euro, and the uptick in global demand after COVID-19 lockdowns, said Cambridge Econometrics.

Electricity prices have risen at a much slower pace than energy for transport and heating, with an annualized increase of 5.1 percent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Coal-to-Gas Transition will retire coal units, convert plants to natural gas, boost renewables, and affect electricity prices, with policy tools like a price cap and carbon tax shaping the power market.

Key Points

Shift retiring coal units and converting to natural gas and renewables, targeting coal elimination by 2030.

✅ TransAlta retires Sundance coal unit; more units convert to gas.

✅ Forward prices seen near $40 to low $50/MWh in 2018.

✅ 6.8-cent cap shields consumers; carbon tax backstops costs.

The turn of the calendar to 2018 saw TransAlta retire one of its coal power generating units at its Sundance plant west of Edmonton and mothball another as it begins the transition to cleaner sources of energy across Alberta.

The company will say goodbye to three more units over the next year and a half to prepare them for conversion to natural gas.

This is part of a fundamental shift in Alberta, which will see coal power retired ahead of schedule by 2030, replaced by a mix of natural gas and renewable sources.

“We’re going to see that transition continue right up from now until 2030, and likely beyond 2030 as wind generation starts to outpace coal and new technologies become available.”

Coal has long been the backbone of Alberta’s grid, currently providing nearly 40 per cent of the provinces power. Analysts believe removing it will come with a cost to consumers, according to a report on coal phase-out costs published recently.

“The open question over the next couple of years is whether they’re going to inch up gradually, or whether they’re going to inch up like they did in 2012 and 2013, by having periods of very high power prices.”

Albertans are currently paying historically low power prices, with generation costs last year averaging below $23/MWh, less than half of the average of the past 10 years.

A report released in mid-December by electricity consultant firm EDC Associates showed forward prices moving from the $40/MWh in the first three months of 2018, to the low $50/MWh range.

“The forwards tend to take several weeks to fully react to announcements, so its anticipated that prices will continue to gradually track upwards over the coming weeks,” the report reads.

The NDP government has taken steps to protect consumers against price surges. Last spring, a price cap of 6.8 cents/MWh was put in place until the spring of 2021, with any cost above that to be covered by carbon tax revenue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nova Scotia Integrated Resource Plan evaluates NSPI supply options, UARB oversight, Muskrat Falls imports, coal retirements, wind and biomass expansion, transmission upgrades, storage, and least-cost pathways to decarbonize the grid for ratepayers.

Key Points

A 25-year roadmap assessing supply, imports, costs, and emissions to guide least-cost decarbonization for Nova Scotia.

✅ Compares wind, biomass, gas, imports, and storage costs

✅ Addresses coal retirements, emissions caps, and reliability

✅ Recommends transmission upgrades and Muskrat Falls utilization

Maintaining a viable electricity network requires good long-term planning and, as a recent grid operations report notes, ongoing operational improvements. The existing stock of generating assets can become obsolete through aging, changes in fuel prices or environmental considerations. Future changes in demand must be anticipated.

Periodically, an integrated resource plan is created to predict how all this will add up during the ensuing 25 years. That process is currently underway and is led by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and will be submitted for approval to the Utilities and Review Board (UARB).

Coal-fired plants are still the largest single source of electricity in Nova Scotia. They need to be replaced with more environmentally friendly sources when they reach the end of their useful lives. Other sources include wind, hydroelectricity from rivers, biomass, as seen in increased biomass use by NS Power, natural gas and imports from other jurisdictions.

Imports are used sparingly today but will be an important source when the electricity from Muskrat Falls comes on stream. That project has big capacity. It can produce all the power needed in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where Quebec's power ambitions influence regional flows, plus the amount already committed to Nova Scotia, and still have a lot left over.

Some sources of electricity are more valuable than others. The daily amount of power from wind and solar cannot be controlled. Fuel-based sources and hydro can.

Utilities make their profits by providing the capital necessary to build infrastructure. Most of the money is borrowed but a portion, typically 30 per cent, usually comes from NSPI or a sister company. On that they receive a rate of return of nine per cent. Nova Scotia can borrow money today at less than two per cent.

The largest single investment of that type is the $1.577-billion Maritime Link connecting power from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. It continues through to the New Brunswick border to facilitate exports to the United States. NSPI’s sister company, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML), is making nine per cent on $473 million of the cost.

There is little unexploited hydro capacity in Nova Scotia and there will not be any new coal-fired plants. Large-scale solar is not competitive in Nova Scotia’s climate. Nova Scotia’s needs would not accommodate the amount of nuclear capacity needed to be cost-effective, even as New Brunswick explores small reactors in its strategy.

So the candidates for future generating resources are wind, natural gas, biomass (though biomass criticism remains) and imports from other jurisdictions. Tidal is a promising opportunity but is still searching for a commercially viable technology. 

NSPI is commendably transparent about its process (irp.nspower.ca). At this stage there is little indication of the conclusions they are reaching but that will presumably appear in due course.

The mountains of detail might obscure the fact that NSPI is not an unbiased arbiter of choices for the future.

It is reported that they want to prematurely close the Trenton 5 coal plant in 2023-25. It is valued at $88.5 million. If it is closed early, ratepayers will still have to pay off the remaining value even though the plant will be idle. NSPI wants to plan a decommissioning of five of its other seven plants. There is a federal emissions constraint but retiring coal plants earlier than needed will cost ratepayers a lot.

Whenever those plants are closed, there will be a need for new sources of power. NSPI is proposing to plan for new investments in new transmission infrastructure to facilitate imports. Other possibilities would be additional wind farms, consistent with the shift to more wind and solar projects, thermal plants that burn natural gas or biomass, or storage for excess wind power that arrives before it can be used. The investment in storage could be anywhere from $20 million to $200 million.

These will add to the asset burden funded by ratepayers, even as industrial customers seek discounts while still paying for shuttered coal infrastructure.

External sources of new power will not provide NSPI the same opportunity: wind power by independent producers might be less expensive because they are willing to settle for less than nine per cent or because they are more efficient. Buying more power from Muskrat Falls will use transmission infrastructure we are already paying for. If a successful tidal technology is found, it will not be owned by NSPI or a sister company, which are no longer trying to perfect the technology.

This is not to suggest that NSPI would misrepresent the alternatives. But they can tilt the discussion in their favour. How tough will they be negotiating for additional Muskrat Falls power when it hurts their profits? Arguing for premature coal retirement on environmental grounds is fair game but whether the cost should be accepted is a political choice. 

NSPI is in a conflict of interest. We need a different process. An independent body should author the integrated resource plan. They should be fully informed about NSPI’s views.

They should communicate directly with Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat power, with independent wind producers, and with tidal power companies. The UARB cannot do any of these things.

The resulting plan should undergo the same UARB review that NSPI’s version would. This enhances the likelihood that Nova Scotians will get the least-cost alternative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News