Duke braces for fallout from ethics flap

Hydro-Que9bec COVID-19 M&A Pause signals a halt to international expansion as falling electricity demand, weaker exports, and revenue pressure shift capital to the Quebec economy, prioritizing domestic investment, strategic plan revisions, and risk management.

Key Points

Hydro-Que9bec COVID-19 M&A Pause halts overseas deals, shifting investment to Quebec as demand, exports and revenue fall.

✅ International M&A on hold; capital reallocated to Quebec projects

✅ Lower electricity demand reduces exports and spot prices

✅ Strategic plan and 2020 guidance revised downward

COVID-19 is forcing Hydro-Québec to pull the plug on its global ambitions — for now, even as its electricity ambitions have reopened old wounds in Newfoundland and Labrador in recent years.

Quebec’s state-owned power generator and distributor has put international mergers and acquisitions on hold for the foreseeable future because of the COVID-19 crisis, chief financial officer Jean-Hugues Lafleur said Friday.

Former chief executive officer Éric Martel, who left last month, had made foreign expansion a key tenet of his growth strategy.

“We’re in revision mode” as pertains to acquisitions, Lafleur told reporters on a conference call, as the company pursues a long-term strategy to wean the province off fossil fuels at home as well. “I don’t see how Hydro-Québec could take $5 billion now and invest it in Chile because we have an investment opportunity there. Instead, the $5 billion will be invested here to support the Quebec economy. We’re going to make sure the Quebec economy recovers the right way before we go abroad.”

Lafleur spoke after Hydro-Québec reported a 14-per-cent drop in first-quarter profit and warned full-year results will fall short of expectations as COVID-19 weighs on power demand.

Net income in the three-month period ended March 31 was $1.53 billion, down from $1.77 billion a year ago, Hydro-Québec said in a statement. Revenue fell about six per cent to $4.37 billion.

“Due to the economic downturn resulting from the current crisis, we’re anticipating lower electricity sales in all of our markets,” Lafleur said. “Consequently, the financial outlook for 2020 set out in the strategic plan 2020–2024, which also reflects the province’s no-nuclear stance, will be revised downward.”

It’s still too early to determine the scope of the revision, the company said in its quarterly report. Hydro-Québec was targeting net income of between $2.8 billion and $3 billion in 2020, according to its strategic plan.

The first quarter was the utility’s last under Martel, who quit to take over at jetmaker Bombardier Inc. Quebec appointed former Énergir CEO Sophie Brochu to replace him, effective April 6.

First-quarter results “weren’t significantly affected” by the pandemic, Lafleur said on a conference call with reporters. Electricity sales generated $294 million less than a year ago due primarily to milder temperatures, he said.

Results will start to reflect COVID-19’s impact in the second quarter, though NB Power has signed three deals to bring more Quebec electricity into the province that could cushion some exports.

Electricity consumption in Quebec has fallen five per cent in the past two months, paced by an 11-per-cent plunge for commercial and institutional clients, and cities such as Ottawa saw a demand plunge during closures.

Industrial customers such as pulp and paper producers have also curbed power use, and it’s hard to see demand rebounding this year, Lafleur said.

“What we’ve lost since the start of the pandemic is not coming back,” he said.

Demand on export markets, meanwhile, has shrunk between six per cent and nine per cent since mid-March. The drop has been particularly steep in Ontario, reaching as much as 12 per cent, after the province chose not to renew its electricity deal with Quebec earlier this year, compared with declines of up to five per cent in New England and eight per cent in New York.

Spot prices in the U.S. have retreated in tandem, falling this week to as low as 1.5 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, Lafleur said. Hydro-Québec’s hedging strategy — which involves entering into fixed-price sales contracts about a year ahead of time — allowed the company to export power for an average of 4.9 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour in the first quarter, compared with the 2.2 cents it would have otherwise made.

Investments will decline this year as construction activity proceeds at reduced speed, Lafleur said. Hydro-Québec was initially planning to invest about $4 billion in the province, he said, as it works to increase hydropower capacity to more than 37,000 MW across its fleet.

Physical distancing measures “are having an impact on productivity,” Lafleur said. “We can’t work the way we wanted, and project costs are going to be affected. Anytime we send workers north on a plane, we need to leave an empty seat beside them.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK EV Per-Mile Taxes are reshaping road pricing and vehicle taxation for electric cars, raising fairness concerns, climate policy questions, and funding needs for infrastructure and charging networks across the country.

Key Points

They are per-mile road charges on EVs to fund infrastructure, raising fairness, emissions, and vehicle taxation concerns.

✅ Propose tax relief or credits for EV owners

✅ Consider emission-based road user charging

✅ Invest in charging networks and road infrastructure

As the UK continues its push towards a greener future with increased adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and surging EV interest during supply disruptions, a growing number of electric car drivers are voicing their frustration over the current tax system. The debate centers around the per-mile vehicle taxes that are being proposed and implemented, which many argue are unfairly burdensome on EV owners. This issue has sparked a broader campaign advocating for a more equitable approach to vehicle taxation, one that reflects the evolving landscape of transportation and environmental policy.

Rising Costs for Electric Car Owners

Electric vehicles have been hailed as a crucial component in the UK’s strategy to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. Government incentives, such as grants for EV purchases and tax breaks, have been instrumental in encouraging the shift from petrol and diesel cars to cleaner alternatives, even as affordability concerns persist among many UK consumers. However, as the number of electric vehicles on the road grows, the financial dynamics of vehicle taxation are coming under scrutiny.

One of the key issues is the introduction and increase of per-mile vehicle taxes. While these taxes are designed to account for road usage and infrastructure costs, they have been met with resistance from EV drivers who argue that they are being disproportionately affected. Unlike traditional combustion engine vehicles, electric cars typically have lower running costs compared to petrol or diesel models and, in many cases, benefit from lower or zero emissions. Yet, the current tax system does not always reflect these advantages.

The Taxation Debate

The crux of the debate lies in how vehicle taxes are structured and implemented. Per-mile taxes are intended to ensure that all road users contribute fairly to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. However, the implementation of such taxes has raised concerns about fairness and affordability, particularly for those who have invested heavily in electric vehicles.

Critics argue that per-mile taxes do not adequately take into account the environmental benefits of driving an electric car, noting that the net impact depends on the electricity generation mix in each market. While EV owners are contributing to a cleaner environment by reducing emissions, they are also facing higher taxes that could undermine the financial benefits of their greener choice. This has led to calls for a reassessment of the tax system to ensure that it aligns with the UK’s climate goals and provides a fair deal for electric vehicle drivers.

Campaigns for Fairer Taxation

In response to these concerns, several advocacy groups and individual EV owners have launched campaigns calling for a more balanced approach to vehicle taxation. These campaigns emphasize the need for a system that supports the transition to electric vehicles and recognizes their role in reducing environmental impact, drawing on ambitious EV targets abroad as useful benchmarks.

Key proposals from these campaigns include:

1. Tax Relief for EV Owners: Advocates suggest providing targeted tax relief for electric vehicle owners to offset the costs of per-mile taxes. This could include subsidies or tax credits that acknowledge the environmental benefits of EVs and help to make up for higher road usage fees.

2. Emission-Based Taxation: An alternative approach is to design vehicle taxes based on emissions rather than mileage. This system would ensure that those driving high-emission vehicles contribute more to road maintenance, while EV owners, who are already reducing emissions, are not penalized.

3. Infrastructure Investments: Campaigners also call for increased investments in infrastructure that supports electric vehicles, such as charging networks and proper grid management practices that balance load. This would help to address concerns about the adequacy of current road maintenance and support the growing number of EVs on the road.

Government Response and Future Directions

The UK government faces the challenge of balancing revenue needs with environmental goals. While there is recognition of the need to update the tax system in light of increasing EV adoption, there is also a focus on ensuring that any changes are equitable and do not disincentivize the shift towards cleaner vehicles, while considering whether the UK grid can handle additional EV demand reliably.

Discussions are ongoing about how to best implement changes that address the concerns of electric vehicle owners while ensuring that the transportation infrastructure remains adequately funded. The outcome of these discussions will be critical in shaping the future of vehicle taxation in the UK and supporting the country’s broader environmental objectives.

Conclusion

As electric vehicle adoption continues to rise in the UK, the debate over vehicle taxation becomes increasingly important. The campaign for fairer per-mile taxes highlights the need for a tax system that supports the transition to cleaner transportation while also being fair to those who have made environmentally conscious choices. Balancing these factors will be key to achieving the UK’s climate goals and ensuring that all road users contribute equitably to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. The ongoing dialogue and policy adjustments will play a crucial role in shaping a sustainable and just future for transportation in the UK.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario SMR BWRX-300 leads Canada in next-gen nuclear energy at Darlington, with GE Vernova and Hitachi, delivering clean, reliable power via modular design, passive safety, scalability, and lower costs for grid integration.

Key Points

Ontario SMR BWRX-300 is a 300 MW modular boiling water reactor at Darlington with passive safety and clean power.

✅ 300 MW BWR supplies power for about 300,000 homes

✅ Passive safety enables safe shutdown without external power

✅ Modular design reduces costs and speeds grid integration

Ontario has initiated the construction of Canada's first small modular nuclear reactor (SMR), supported by OPG's SMR commitment to deployment, marking a significant milestone in the province's energy strategy. This development positions Ontario at the forefront of next-generation nuclear technology within the G7 nations.

The project, known as the Darlington New Nuclear Project, is being led by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in collaboration with GE Vernova and Hitachi Nuclear Energy, and through its OPG-TVA partnership on new nuclear technology development. The chosen design is the BWRX-300, a 300-megawatt boiling water reactor that is approximately one-tenth the size and complexity of traditional nuclear reactors. The first unit is expected to be operational by 2029, with plans for additional units to follow.

Each BWRX-300 reactor is projected to supply electricity to about 300,000 homes, contributing to Ontario's efforts, which include the decision to refurbish Pickering B for additional baseload capacity, to meet the anticipated 75% increase in electricity demand by 2050. The compact design of the SMR allows for easier integration into existing infrastructure, reducing the need for extensive new transmission lines.

The economic impact of the project is substantial. The construction of four such reactors is expected to create up to 18,000 jobs and contribute approximately $38.5 billion CAD to the Canadian economy, reflecting the economic benefits of nuclear projects over 65 years. The modular nature of SMRs also allows for scalability, with each additional unit potentially reducing costs through economies of scale.

Safety is a paramount consideration in the design of the BWRX-300. The reactor employs passive safety features, meaning it can safely shut down without the need for external power or operator intervention. This design enhances the reactor's resilience to potential emergencies, aligning with stringent regulatory standards.

Ontario's commitment to nuclear energy is further demonstrated by its plans for four SMRs at the Darlington site. This initiative reflects a broader strategy to diversify the province's energy mix, incorporating clean and reliable power sources to complement renewable energy efforts.

While the development of SMRs in Ontario is a significant step forward, it also aligns with the Canadian nuclear initiative positioning Canada as a leader in the global nuclear energy landscape. The successful implementation of the BWRX-300 could serve as a model for other nations exploring advanced nuclear technologies.

Ontario's groundbreaking work on small modular nuclear reactors represents a forward-thinking approach to energy generation. By embracing innovative technologies, the province is not only addressing future energy demands but also, through the Pickering NGS life extension, contributing to the global transition towards sustainable and secure energy solutions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Kakrapar Unit 3 700MWe PHWR achieved first criticality, showcasing indigenously designed nuclear power, NPCIL operations, Make in India manufacturing, advanced safety systems, grid integration, and closed-fuel-cycle strategy for India's expansion of pressurised heavy water reactors.

Key Points

India's first indigenous 700MWe PHWR at Kakrapar reached criticality, advancing NPCIL's Make in India nuclear power.

✅ First indigenous 700MWe PHWR achieves criticality

✅ NPCIL-built, Make in India components and contractors

✅ Advanced safety: passive decay heat removal, containment spray

Unit 3 of India’s Kakrapar nuclear plant in Gujarat achieved criticality on 22 July, as milestones at nuclear projects worldwide continue to be reached. It is India’s first indigenously designed 700MWe pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR) to achieve this milestone.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated nuclear scientists, saying the reactor is a shining example of the 'Make in India' campaign and of the government's steps to get nuclear back on track in recent years, and a trailblazer for many such future achievements. 

India developed its own nuclear power generation technology as it faced sanctions from the international community following its first nuclear weapons test in in 1974. It has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while China's nuclear energy development is on a steady track according to experts. India has developed a three-stage nuclear programme based on a closed-fuel cycle, where the used fuel of one stage is reprocessed to produce fuel for the next stage.

Kakrapar 3 was developed and is operated by state-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), while in Europe KHNP considered for a Bulgarian project as countries weigh options. The first two units are 220MWe PHWRs commissioned in 1993 and 1995. NPCIL said in a statement that the components and equipment for Kakrapur 3 were “manufactured by lndian industries and the construction and erection was undertaken by various lndian contractors”.

The 700MWe PHWRs have advanced safety features such as steel lined inner containment, a passive decay heat removal system, a containment spray system, hydrogen management systems etc, the statement added.

Fuel loading was completed by mid-March, a crucial step in Abu Dhabi during its commissioning as well. “Thereafter, many tests and procedures were carried out during the lockdown period following all COVlD-19 guidelines.”

“As a next step, various experiments / tests will be conducted and power will be increased progressively, a path also followed by Barakah Unit 1 reaching 100% power before commercial operations.” Kakrapur 3 will be connected to the western grid and will be India’s 23rd nuclear power reactor.

Kakrapur 3 “is the front runner in a series of 16 indigenous 700MWe PHWRs which have been accorded administrative approval and financial sanction by the government and are at various stages of implementation”. Five similar units are under construction at Kakarapur 4, Rajasthan 7&8 and Gorakhpur1&2.

DAE said in January 2019 that India planned to put 21 new nuclear units with a combined generating capacity of 15,700MWe into operation by 2031, including ten indigenously designed PHWRs, while Bangladesh develops nuclear power with IAEA assistance. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro Quebec transmission expansion aims to move surplus hydroelectric capacity from record reservoirs to the US grid via new interties, increasing exports to New England and New York amid rising winter peak demand.

Key Points

A plan to add capacity and intertie links to export surplus hydro power from Quebec's reservoirs to the US grid.

✅ 245 MW added in 2021; portfolio reaches 37,012 MW

✅ Reservoirs at unprecedented levels; export potential high

✅ Lacks US transmission; working on new interties

Hydro Quebec plans to add an incremental 245 MW of hydro-electric generation capacity in 2021 to its expansive portfolio in the north of the province, while Quebec authorized nearly 1,000 MW for industrial projects across the region, bringing the total capacity to 37,012 MW, an official said Friday

Quebec`s highest peak demand of 39,240 MW occurred on January 22, 2014.

A little over 75% of Quebec`s population heat their homes with electricity, Sutherland said, aligning with Hydro Quebec's strategy to wean the province off fossil fuels over time.

The province-owned company produced 205.1 TWh of power in 2017 and its net exports were 34.4 TWh that year, while Ontario chose not to renew a power deal in a separate development.

Sutherland said Hydro Quebec`s reservoirs are currently at "unprecedented levels" and the company could export more of its electricity to New England and New York, but faces transmission constraints that limit its ability to do so.

Hydro Quebec is working with US transmission developers, electric distribution companies, independent system operators and state government agencies to expand that transmission capacity in order to delivery more power from its hydro system to the US, Sutherland said.

Separately, NB Power signed three deals to bring more Quebec electricity into the province, reflecting growing regional demand.

The last major intertie connection between Quebec and the US was completed close to 30 years ago. The roughly 2,000 MW capacity transmission line that connects into the Boston area was completed in the late 1990s, according to Hydro Quebec spokeswoman Lynn St-Laurent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News