Consumers to face higher power prices

Toronto Electricity Demand Growth underscores IESO projections of rising peak load by 2050, driven by population growth, electrification, new housing density, and tech economy, requiring grid modernization, transmission upgrades, demand response, and local renewable energy.

Key Points

It refers to the projected near-doubling of Toronto's peak load by 2050, driven by electrification and urban growth.

✅ IESO projects peak demand nearly doubling by 2050

✅ Drivers: population, densification, EVs, heat pumps

✅ Solutions: efficiency, transmission, storage, demand response

Toronto faces a significant challenge in meeting the growing electricity needs of its expanding population and ambitious development plans. According to a new report from Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), Toronto's peak electricity demand is expected to nearly double by 2050. This highlights the need for proactive steps to secure adequate electricity supply amidst the city's ongoing economic and population growth.

Key Factors Driving Demand

Several factors are contributing to the projected increase in electricity demand:

Population Growth: Toronto is one of the fastest-growing cities in North America, and this trend is expected to continue. More residents mean more need for housing, businesses, and other electricity-consuming infrastructure.

• New Homes and Density: The city's housing strategy calls for 285,000 new homes within the next decade, including significant densification in existing neighbourhoods. High-rise buildings in urban centers are generally more energy-intensive than low-rise residential developments.
• Economic Development: Toronto's robust economy, a hub for tech and innovation, attracts new businesses, including energy-intensive AI data centers that fuel further demand for electricity.
• Electrification: The push to reduce carbon emissions is driving the electrification of transportation and home heating, further increasing pressure on Toronto's electricity grid.

Planning for the Future

Ontario and the City of Toronto recognize the urgency to secure stable and reliable electricity supplies to support continued growth and prosperity without sacrificing affordability, drawing lessons from British Columbia's clean energy shift to inform local approaches. Officials are collaborating to develop a long-term plan that focuses on:

• Energy Efficiency: Efforts aim to reduce wasteful electricity usage through upgrades to existing buildings, promoting energy-efficient appliances, and implementing smart grid technologies. These will play a crucial role in curbing overall demand.
• New Infrastructure: Significant investments in building new electricity generation, transmission lines, and substations, as well as regional macrogrids to enhance reliability, will be necessary to meet the projected demands of Toronto's future.
• Demand Management: Programs incentivizing energy conservation during peak hours will help to avoid strain on the grid and reduce the need to build expensive power plants only used at peak demand times.

Challenges Ahead

The path ahead isn't without its hurdles.  Building new power infrastructure in a dense urban environment like Toronto can be time-consuming, expensive, and sometimes disruptive, especially as grids face harsh weather risks that complicate construction and operations. Residents and businesses might worry about potential rate increases required to fund these necessary investments.

Opportunity for Innovation

The IESO and the city view the situation as an opportunity to embrace innovative solutions. Exploring renewable energy sources within and near the city, developing local energy storage systems, and promoting distributed energy generation such as rooftop solar, where power is created near the point of use, are all vital strategies for meeting needs in a sustainable way.

Toronto's electricity future depends heavily on proactive planning and investment in modernizing its power infrastructure.  The decisions made now will determine whether the city can support economic growth, address climate goals and a net-zero grid by 2050 ambition, and ensure that lights stay on for all Torontonians as the city continues to expand.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Minnesota 100% Carbon-Free Electricity advances renewable energy: wind, solar, hydropower, hydrogen, biogas from landfill gas and anaerobic digestion; excludes incineration in environmental justice areas; uses renewable energy credits and streamlined permitting.

Key Points

Minnesota's mandate requires utilities to deliver 100% carbon-free power by 2040 with targets and EJ safeguards.

✅ Utilities must hit 90% carbon-free by 2035; 100% by 2040.

✅ Incineration in EJ areas excluded; biogas, wind, solar allowed.

✅ Compliance via renewable credits; streamlined permitting.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, D, is expected to soon sign a bill establishing a clean electricity standard requiring utilities in the state to provide electricity from 100% carbon-free sources by 2040. The bill also calls for utilities to generate at least 55% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2035, a trajectory similar to New Mexico's clean electricity push underway this decade.

Electricity generated from landfill gas and anaerobic digestion are named as approved renewable energy technologies, but electricity generated from incinerators operating in “environmental justice areas”, reflecting concerns about renewable facilities violating pollution rules in some states, will not be counted toward the goal. Wind, solar, and certain hydropower and hydrogen energy sources are also considered renewable in the bill. 

The bill defines EJ areas as places where at least 40% of residents are not white, 35% of households have an income that’s below 200% of the federal poverty line, and 40% or more of residents over age 5 have “limited” English proficiency. Areas the U.S. state defines as “Indian country” are also considered EJ areas.

Some of the state’s largest electric utilities, like Xcel Energy and Minnesota Power, have already pledged to move to carbon-free energy, and utilities such as Alliant Energy have outlined carbon-neutral plans in the region, but this bill speeds up that goal by 10 years, Minnesota Public Radio reported. The bill calls for public utilities operating in the state to be 80% carbon-free and other electric utilities to be 60% carbon-free by 2030. All utilities must be 90% carbon-free by 2035 before ultimately hitting the 100% mark in 2040, according to the bill.  

The bill gives utilities some leniency if they demonstrate to state regulators that they can’t offer affordable power while working toward the benchmarks, acknowledging reliability challenges seen in places like California's grid during the clean energy transition. It also allows utilities to buy renewable energy credits to meet the standard instead of generating the energy themselves. 

Patrick Serfass, executive director of the American Biogas Council, said the bill will incentivize more biogas-related electricity projects, “which means the recycling of more organic material and more renewable electricity in the state. Those are all good things,” he said. ABC sees significant potential for biogas production in Minnesota, though the federal climate law has delivered mixed results for accelerating clean power deployment.

The bill also aims to streamline the permitting process for new energy projects in the state, even as some states consider limits on clean energy that would constrain utility use, and calls for higher minimum wage requirements for workers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Power Grid Blackouts highlight aging infrastructure, rising outages, and declining reliability per DOE and NERC data, with weather-driven failures, cyberattack risk, and underinvestment stressing utilities, transmission lines, and modernization efforts.

Key Points

US power grid blackouts are outages caused by aging grid assets, severe weather, and cyber threats reducing reliability.

✅ DOE and NERC data show rising outage frequency and duration.

✅ Weather now drives 68-73% of major failures since 2008.

✅ Modernization, hardening, and cybersecurity investments are critical.

The United States power grid has more blackouts than any other country in the developed world, according to new data and U.S. blackout warnings that spotlight the country’s aging and unreliable electric system.

The data by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) shows that Americans face more power grid failures lasting at least an hour than residents of other developed nations.

And it’s getting worse.

Going back three decades, the US grid loses power 285 percent more often than it did in 1984, when record keeping began, International Business Times reported. The power outages cost businesses in the United States as much as $150 billion per year, according to the Department of Energy.

Customers in Japan lose power for an average of 4 minutes per year, as compared to customers in the US upper Midwest (92 minutes) and upper Northwest (214), University of Minnesota Professor Massoud Amin told the Times. Amin is director of the Technological Leadership Institute at the school.

#google#

The grid is becoming less dependable each year, he said.

“Each one of these blackouts costs tens of hundreds of millions, up to billions, of dollars in economic losses per event,” Amin said. “… We used to have two to five major weather events per year [that knocked out power], from the ‘50s to the ‘80s. Between 2008 and 2012, major outages caused by weather, reflecting extreme weather trends, increased to 70 to 130 outages per year. Weather used to account for about 17 to 21 percent of all root causes. Now, in the last five years, it’s accounting for 68 to 73 percent of all major outages.”

As previously reported by Off The Grid News, the power grid received a “D+” grade on its power grid report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 2013. The power grid grade card rating means the energy infrastructure is in “poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life.” It further means a “large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration” with a “strong risk of failure.”

“America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s,” the 2013 ASCE report read. “Investment in power transmission has increased since 2005, but ongoing permitting issues, weather events, and limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of failures and power interruptions.”

As The Times noted, the US power grid as it exists today was built shortly after World War II, with the design dating back to Thomas Edison. While Edison was a genius, he and his contemporaries could not have envisioned all the strains the modern world would place upon the grid and the multitude of tech gadgets many Americans treat as an extension of their body. While the drain on the grid has advanced substantially, the infrastructure itself has not.

There are approximately 5 million miles of electrical transmission lines throughout the United States, and thousands of power generating plants dot the landscape. The electrical grid is managed by a group of 3,300 different utilities and serve about 150 million customers, The Times said. The entire power grid system is currently valued at $876 billion.

Many believe the grid is vulnerable to an attack on substations and other threats.

Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano once said that a power grid cyber attack is a matter of “when” not “if,” as Russians hacked utilities incidents have shown.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Duke Energy Clean Energy Strategy advances renewables, battery storage, grid modernization, and energy efficiency to cut carbon, retire coal, and target net-zero by 2050 across the Carolinas with robust IRPs and capital investments.

Key Points

Plan to expand renewables, storage, and grid upgrades to cut carbon and reach net-zero electricity by 2050.

✅ 56B investment in renewables, storage, and grid modernization

✅ Targets 50% carbon reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050

✅ Retires coal units; expands energy efficiency and IRPs

Duke Energy says that the company will continue advancing its ambitious clean energy goals without the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) by investing in renewables, battery storage, energy efficiency programs and grid projects that support U.S. electrification efforts.

Duke Energy, the nation's largest electric utility, unveils its new logo. (PRNewsFoto/Duke Energy) (PRNewsfoto/Duke Energy)

Duke Energy's $56 billion capital investment plan will deliver significant customer benefits and create jobs at a time when policymakers at all levels are looking for ways to rebuild the economy in 2020 and beyond. These investments will deliver cleaner energy for customers and communities while enhancing the energy grid to provide greater reliability and resiliency.

"Sustainability and the reduction of carbon emissions are closely tied to our region's success," said Lynn Good, Duke Energy Chair, President and CEO. "In our recent Climate Report, we shared a vision of a cleaner electricity future with an increasing focus on renewables and battery storage in addition to a diverse mix of zero-carbon nuclear, natural gas, hydro and energy efficiency programs.

"Achieving this clean energy vision will require all of us working together to develop a plan that is smart, equitable and ensures the reliability and affordability that will spur economic growth in the region. While we're disappointed that we're not able to move forward with ACP, we will continue exploring ways to help our customers and communities, particularly in eastern North Carolina where the need is great," said Good.

Already a clean-energy leader, Duke Energy has reduced its carbon emissions by 39% from 2005 and remains on track to cut its carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2030, as peers like Alliant's carbon-neutral plan demonstrate broader industry momentum toward decarbonization. The company also has an ambitious clean energy goal of reaching net-zero emissions from electricity generation by 2050. 

In September 2020, Duke Energy plans to file its Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) for the Carolinas after an extensive process of working with the state's leaders, policymakers, customers and other stakeholders. The IRPs will include multiple scenarios to support a path to a cleaner energy future in the Carolinas, reflecting key utility trends shaping resource planning.

Since 2010, Duke Energy has retired 51 coal units totaling more than 6,500 megawatts (MW) and plans to retire at least an additional 900 MW by the end of 2024. In 2019, the company proposed to shorten the book lives of another approximately 7,700 MW of coal capacity in North Carolina and Indiana.

Duke Energy will host an analyst call in early August 2020 to discuss second quarter 2020 financial results and other business and financial updates. The company will also host its inaugural Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investor day in October 2020.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy is transforming its customers' experience, modernizing the energy grid, generating cleaner energy and expanding natural gas infrastructure to create a smarter energy future for the people and communities it serves. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure unit's regulated utilities serve 7.8 million retail electric customers in six states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure unit distributes natural gas to 1.6 million customers in five states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky. The Duke Energy Renewables unit operates wind and solar generation facilities across the U.S., as well as energy storage and microgrid projects.

Duke Energy was named to Fortune's 2020 "World's Most Admired Companies" list and Forbes' "America's Best Employers" list. More information about the company is available at duke-energy.com. The Duke Energy News Center contains news releases, fact sheets, photos, videos and other materials. Duke Energy's illumination features stories about people, innovations, community topics and environmental issues. Follow Duke Energy on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.

Forward-Looking Information

This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and can often be identified by terms and phrases that include "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "estimate," "expect," "continue," "should," "could," "may," "plan," "project," "predict," "will," "potential," "forecast," "target," "guidance," "outlook" or other similar terminology. Various factors may cause actual results to be materially different than the suggested outcomes within forward-looking statements; accordingly, there is no assurance that such results will be realized. These factors include, but are not limited to:

• The impact of the COVID-19 electricity demand shift on operations and revenues;
• State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements, including those related to climate change, as well as rulings that affect cost and investment recovery or have an impact on rate structures or market prices;
• The extent and timing of costs and liabilities to comply with federal and state laws, regulations and legal requirements related to coal ash remediation, including amounts for required closure of certain ash impoundments, are uncertain and difficult to estimate;
• The ability to recover eligible costs, including amounts associated with coal ash impoundment retirement obligations and costs related to significant weather events, and to earn an adequate return on investment through rate case proceedings and the regulatory process;
• The costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities could prove to be more extensive than amounts estimated and all costs may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process;
• Costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims;
• Industrial, commercial and residential growth or decline in service territories or customer bases resulting from sustained downturns of the economy and the economic health of our service territories or variations in customer usage patterns, including energy efficiency and demand response efforts and use of alternative energy sources, such as self-generation and distributed generation technologies;
• Federal and state regulations, laws and other efforts designed to promote and expand the use of energy efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies, such as private solar and battery storage, in Duke Energy service territories could result in customers leaving the electric distribution system, excess generation resources as well as stranded costs;
• Advancements in technology;
• Additional competition in electric and natural gas markets and continued industry consolidation;
• The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of severe storms, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and tornadoes, including extreme weather associated with climate change;
• The ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers including direct or indirect effects to the company resulting from an incident that affects the U.S. electric grid or generating resources;
• The ability to obtain the necessary permits and approvals and to complete necessary or desirable pipeline expansion or infrastructure projects in our natural gas business;
• Operational interruptions to our natural gas distribution and transmission activities;
• The availability of adequate interstate pipeline transportation capacity and natural gas supply;
• The impact on facilities and business from a terrorist attack, cybersecurity threats, data security breaches, operational accidents, information technology failures or other catastrophic events, such as fires, explosions, pandemic health events or other similar occurrences;
• The inherent risks associated with the operation of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks, including the financial stability of third-party service providers;
• The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and interest rates and the ability to recover such costs through the regulatory process, where appropriate, and their impact on liquidity positions and the value of underlying assets;
• The results of financing efforts, including the ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including credit ratings, interest rate fluctuations, compliance with debt covenants and conditions and general market and economic conditions;
• Credit ratings of the Duke Energy Registrants may be different from what is expected;
• Declines in the market prices of equity and fixed-income securities and resultant cash funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans, other post-retirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trust funds;
• Construction and development risks associated with the completion of the Duke Energy Registrants' capital investment projects, including risks related to financing, obtaining and complying with terms of permits, meeting construction budgets and schedules and satisfying operating and environmental performance standards, as well as the ability to recover costs from customers in a timely manner, or at all;
• Changes in rules for regional transmission organizations, including FERC debates on coal and nuclear subsidies and new and evolving capacity markets, and risks related to obligations created by the default of other participants;
• The ability to control operation and maintenance costs;
• The level of creditworthiness of counterparties to transactions;
• The ability to obtain adequate insurance at acceptable costs;
• Employee workforce factors, including the potential inability to attract and retain key personnel;
• The ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or distributions to Duke Energy Corporation holding company (the Parent);
• The performance of projects undertaken by our nonregulated businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
• The effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies;
• The impact of U.S. tax legislation to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and our credit ratings;
• The impacts from potential impairments of goodwill or equity method investment carrying values; and
• The ability to implement our business strategy, including enhancing existing technology systems.
• Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in the Duke Energy Registrants' reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC's website at sec.gov. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than described. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and the Duke Energy Registrants expressly disclaim an obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Muskrat Falls rate mitigation offsets Newfoundland Power's rate stabilization decrease as NL Hydro begins cost recovery; Public Utilities Board approval enables collections while Labrador-Island Link nears commissioning, stabilizing electricity rates despite megaproject delays, overruns.

Key Points

Muskrat Falls rate mitigation is NL Hydro's cost recovery via power rates to stabilize bills as commissioning nears.

✅ Offsets 6.4% decrease with a 6.1% rate increase

✅ About 6% now funds NL Hydro's rate mitigation

✅ Collections begin as Labrador-Island Link nears commissioning

With their July electricity bill, Newfoundland Power customers have begun paying for Muskrat Falls, though a lump-sum credit was also announced to offset costs and bills haven't significantly increased — yet.

In a July newsletter, Newfoundland Power said electricity bills were set to decrease by 6.4 per cent as part of the annual rate stabilization adjustment, which reflects the cost of electricity generation.

Instead, that decrease has been offset by a 6.1 increase in electricity rates so Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro can begin recovering the cost of Muskrat Falls, with a $5.2-billion federal package also underpinning the project, the $13-billion hydroelectric megaproject that is billions over budget and years behind schedule.

That means for residential customers, electricity rates will decrease to 12.346 cents per kilowatt, though the basic customer charge will go up slightly from $15.81 to $15.83. According to an N.L. Hydro spokesperson, about six per cent of electricity bills will now go toward what it calls a "rate mitigation fund." 

N.L. Hydro claims victory in Muskrat Falls arbitration dispute with Astaldi
Software troubles blamed for $260M Muskrat Falls cost increase, with N.L. power rates stable for now
The spokesperson said N.L. Hydro is expecting the rate increase to result in $43 million this year, according to a recent financial update from the energy corporation — a tiny fraction of the project's cost. 

N.L. Hydro asked the Public Utilities Board to approve the rate increase, a process similar to Nova Scotia's recent 14% approval by its regulator, in May. In a letter, Energy, Industry and Technology Minister Andrew Parsons supported the increase, though he asked N.L. Hydro to keep electricity rates "as close to current levels as possible. 

Province modifies order in council
Muskrat Falls is not yet fully online — largely due to software problems with the Labrador-Island Link transmission line — and an order in council dictated that ratepayers on the island of Newfoundland would not begin paying for the project until the project was fully commissioned. 

The provincial government modified that order in council so N.L. Hydro can begin collecting costs associated with Muskrat Falls once the project is "nearing" commissioning.

In June, N.L. Hydro said the project was expected to finally be completed by the end of the year.

In an interview with CBC News, Progressive Conservative interim leader David Brazil said the decision to begin recovering the cost of Muskrat Falls from consumers should have been delayed.

"There was an opportunity here for people to get some reprieve when it came to their electricity bills and this administration chose not to do that, not to help the people while they're struggling," he said.

In a statement, Parsons said reducing the rate was not an option, and would have resulted in increased borrowing costs for Muskrat Falls.

"Reducing the rate for one year to have it increase significantly the following year is not consistent with rate mitigation and also places an increased financial burden on taxpayers one year from now," Parsons said.

Decision 'reasonable': Consumer advocate
Brazil said his party didn't know the payments from Muskrat Falls would start in July, and criticized the government for not being more transparent.

A person wearing a blue shirt and black blazer stands outside on a lawn.
N.L. consumer advocate Dennis Browne says it makes sense to begin recouping the cost of Muskrat Falls. (Garrett Barry/CBC)
Newfoundland and Labrador consumer advocate Dennis Browne said the decision to begin collecting costs from consumers was "reasonable."

"We're into a financial hole due to Muskrat Falls, and what has happened is in order to stabilize rates, we have gone into rate stabilization efforts," he said.

In February, the provincial and federal governments signed a complex agreement to shield ratepayers aimed at softening the worst of the financial impact from Muskrat Falls. Browne noted even with the agreement, the provincial government will have to pay hundreds of millions in order to stabilize electricity rates.

"Muskrat Falls would cost us $0.23 a kilowatt, and that is out of the range of affordability for most people, and that's why we're into rate mitigation," he said. "This was part of a rate mitigation effort, and I accepted it as part of that."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News