Fourth reactor plans go to NRC

Hydro One investment risk reflects Ontario government influence, board shakeup, Avista acquisition uncertainty, regulatory hearings, dividend growth prospects, and utility M&A moves in Peterborough, with stock volatility since the 2015 IPO.

Key Points

Hydro One investment risk stems from political control, governance turnover, regulatory outcomes, and uncertain M&A.

✅ Ontario retains near-50% stake, affecting autonomy and policy risk

✅ Board overhaul and CEO exit create governance uncertainty

✅ Avista deal, OEB hearings, local utility M&A drive outcomes

Hydro One may be only half-owned by the province on Ontario but that’s enough to cause uncertainty about the company’s future, thus making for an investment risk, says Douglas Kee of Leon Frazer & Associates.

Since its IPO in November of 2015, Hydro One has seen its share of ups and downs, including a Q2 profit decline earlier this year, mostly downs at this point. Currently trading at $19.87, the stock has lost 11 per cent of its value in 2018 and 12 per cent over the last 12 months, despite a one-time gain boosting Q2 profit that followed a court ruling.

This year has been a turbulent one, to say the least, as newly elected Ontario premier Doug Ford made good this summer on his campaign promise re Hydro One by forcing the resignation of the company’s 14-person board of directors along with the retirement of its chief executive, an event that saw Hydro One shares fall amid the turmoil. An interim CEO has been found and a new 10-person board and chairman put in place, but Kee says it’s unclear what impact the shakeup will ultimately have, other than delaying a promising-looking deal to purchase US utility Avista Corp, with the companies moving to ask the U.S. regulator to reconsider the order.

Douglas Kee’s take on Hydro One stock

“We looked at Hydro One a couple of times two years ago and just decided that with the Ontario government’s still owning a big chunk of the company … there are other public companies where you get the same kind of yield, the same kind of dividend growth, so we just avoided it,” says Kee, managing director and chief investment officer with Leon Frazer & Associates, to BNN Bloomberg.

“The old board versus the new board, I’m not sure that there’s much of an improvement. It was politics more than anything,” he says. “The unfortunate part is that the acquisition they were making in the United States is kind of on hold for now. The regulatory procedures have gone ahead but they are worried, and I guess the new board has to make a decision whether to go ahead with it or not.”

“Their transmissions side is coming up for regulatory hearings next year, which could be difficult in Ontario,” says Kee. “The offset to that is that there are a lot of municipal distributions systems in Ontario that may be sold — they bought one in Peterborough recently, which was a good deal for them. There may be more of that coming too.”

Last month, Hydro One reached an agreement with the City of Peterborough to buy its Peterborough Distribution utility which serves about 37,000 customers for $105 million. Another deal to purchase Orillia Power Distribution Corp for $41 million has been cancelled after an appeal to the Ontario Energy Board was denied in late August. Hydro One’s sought-after Avista Corp acquisition is reported to be worth $7 billion.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

U.S. Offshore Wind Capacity is set to exceed 1 GW by 2024, driven by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and resilient supply chains, with eastern states scaling renewable energy, turbines, and content despite COVID-19 disruptions.

Key Points

Projected gigawatt-scale offshore wind growth enabled by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and East Coast state demand.

✅ 17+ GW leased; only 1,870 MW in announced first phases.

✅ BOEM approvals are critical to reach >1 GW by 2024.

✅ Local supply chains mitigate COVID-19 impacts and lower costs.

Offshore wind in the U.S. will exceed 1 GW of capacity by 2024 and add more than 1 GW annually by 2027, a trajectory consistent with U.S. offshore wind power trends, according to a report released last week by Navigant Research.

The report calculated over 17 GW of offshore state and federal leases for wind production, reflecting forecasts that $1 trillion offshore wind market growth is possible. However, the owners of those leases have only announced first phase plans for 1,870 MW of capacity, leaving much of the projects in early stages with significant room to grow, according to senior research analyst Jesse Broehl.

The Business Network for Offshore Wind (BNOW) believes it is possible to hit 1 GW by 2023-24, according to CEO Liz Burdock. While the economy has taken a hit from the coronavirus pandemic, she said the offshore wind industry can continue growing as "the supply chain from Asia and Europe regains speed this summer, and the administration starts clearing" plans of construction.

BNOW is concerned with the economic hardship imposed on secondary and tertiary U.S. suppliers due to the global spread of COVID-19.

Offshore wind has been touted by many eastern states and governors as an opportunity to create jobs, with U.S. wind employment expected to expand, according to industry forecasts. Analysts see the growing momentum of projects as a way to further lower costs by creating a local supply chain, which could be jeopardized by a long-term shutdown and recession.

"The federal government must act now — today, not in December — and approve project construction and operation plans," a recent BNOW report said. Approving any of the seven projects before BOEM, which has recently received new lease requests, currently would allow small businesses to get to work "following the containment of the coronavirus," but approval of the projects next year "may be too late to keep them solvent."

The prospects for maintaining momentum in the industry falls largely to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The industry cannot hit the 1 GW milestone without project approvals by BOEM, which is revising processes to analyze federal permit applications in the context of "greater build out of offshore wind capacity," according to its website.

"It is heavily dependent on the project approval success," Burdock told Utility Dive.

Currently, seven projects are awaiting determinations from BOEM on their construction operation plans in Massachusetts, New York, where a major offshore wind farm was recently approved, New Jersey and Maryland, with more to be added soon, a BNOW spokesperson told Utility Dive.

To date, only one project has received BOEM approval for development in federal waters, a 12 MW pilot by Dominion Energy and Ørsted in Virginia. The two-turbine project is a stepping stone to a commercial-scale 2.6 GW project the companies say could begin installation as soon as 2024, and gave the developers experience with the permitting process.

In the U.S., developers have the capacity to develop 16.9 GW of offshore wind in federal U.S. lease areas, even as wind power's share of the electricity mix surges nationwide, Broehl told Utility Dive, but much of that is in early stages. The Navigant report did not address any impacts of coronavirus on offshore wind, he said.

Although Massachusetts has legislation in place to require utilities to purchase 1.6 GW of wind power by 2026, and several other projects are in early development stages, Navigant expects the first large offshore wind projects in the U.S. (exceeding 200 MW) will come online in 2022 or later, and the first projects with 400 MW or more capacity are likely to be built by 2024-2025, and lessons from the U.K.'s experience could help accelerate timelines. The U.S. would add about 1.2 GW in 2027, Broehl said.

The federal leasing activities along with the involvement from Eastern states and utilities "virtually guarantees that a large offshore wind market is going to take off in the U.S.," Broehl said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

B.C. EV Electrification 2055 projects grid capacity needs doubling to 37 GW, driven by electric vehicles, renewable energy expansion, wind and solar generation, limited natural gas, and policy mandates for zero-emission transportation.

Key Points

A projection that electrifying all B.C. road transport by 2055 would more than double grid demand to 37 GW.

✅ Site C adds 1.1 GW; rest from wind, solar, limited natural gas.

✅ Electricity price per kWh rises 9%, but fuel savings offset.

✅ Significant GHG cuts with 93% renewable grid under Clean Energy Act.

Researchers at the University of Victoria say that if B.C. were to shift to electric power for all road vehicles by 2055, the province would require more than double the electricity now being generated.

The findings are included in a study to be published in the November issue of the Applied Energy journal.

According to co-author and UVic professor Curran Crawford, the team at the university's Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions took B.C.'s 2015 electrical capacity of 15.6 gigawatts as a baseline, and added projected demands from population and economic growth, then added the increase that shifting to electric vehicles would require, while acknowledging power supply challenges that could arise.

They calculated the demand in 2055 would amount to 37 gigawatts, more than double 15.6 gigawatts used in 2015 as a baseline, and utilities warn of a potential EV charging bottleneck if demand ramps up faster than infrastructure.

"We wanted to understand what the electricity requirements are if you want to do that," he said. "It's possible — it would take some policy direction."

B.C. announces $4M in rebates for home and work EV charging stations across the province
The team took the planned Site C dam project into account, but that would only add 1.1 gigawatts of power. So assuming no other hydroelectric dams are planned, the remainder would likely have to come from wind and solar projects and some natural gas.

"Geothermal and biomass were also in the model," said Crawford, adding that they are more expensive electricity sources. "The model we were using, essentially, we're looking for the cheapest options."
Wind turbines on the Tantramar Marsh between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick tower over the Trans-Canada Highway. If British Columbia were to shift to 100 per cent electric-powered ground transportation by 2055, the province would have to significantly increase its wind and solar power generation. (Eric Woolliscroft/CBC)
The electricity bill, per kilowatt hour, would increase by nine per cent, according to the team's research, but Crawford said getting rid of the gasoline and diesel now used to fuel vehicles could amount to an overall cost saving, especially when combined with zero-emission vehicle incentives available to consumers.

The province introduced a law this year requiring that all new light-duty vehicles sold in B.C. be zero emission by 2040, while the federal 2035 EV mandate adds another policy signal, so the researchers figured 2055 was a reasonable date to imagine all vehicles on the road to be electric.

Crawford said hydrogen-powered vehicles weren't considered in the study, as the model used was already complicated enough, but hydrogen fuel would actually require more electricity for the electrolysis, when compared to energy stored in batteries.

Electric vehicles are approaching a tipping point as faster charging becomes more available — here's why
The study also found that shifting to all-electric ground transportation in B.C. would also mean a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, assuming the Clean Energy Act remains in place, which mandates that 93 per cent of grid electricity must come from renewable resources, whereas nationally, about 18 per cent of electricity still comes from fossil fuels, according to 2019 data. 

"Doing the electrification makes some sense — If you're thinking of spending some money to reduce carbon emissions, this is a pretty cost effective way of doing that," said Crawford.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Quebec Hydropower Export Retaliation examines using electricity exports to counter U.S. tariffs amid Canada-U.S. trade tensions, weighing clean energy supply, grid reliability, energy security, legal risks, and long-term market impacts.

Key Points

Using Quebec electricity exports as leverage against U.S. tariffs, and its economic, legal, and diplomatic consequences.

✅ Revenue loss for Quebec and higher costs for U.S. consumers

✅ Risk of legal disputes under trade and energy agreements

✅ Long-term erosion of market share and grid cooperation

As trade tensions between Canada and the United States continue to escalate, with electricity exports at risk according to recent reporting, discussions have intensified around potential Canadian responses to the imposition of U.S. tariffs. One of the proposals gaining attention is the idea of reducing or even halting the export of energy from Quebec to the U.S. This measure has been suggested by some as a potential countermeasure to retaliate against the tariffs. However, experts and industry leaders are urging caution, emphasizing that the consequences of such a decision could have significant economic and diplomatic repercussions for both Canada and the United States.

Quebec plays a critical role in energy trade, particularly in supplying hydroelectric power to the United States, especially to the northeastern states, including New York where tariffs may spike energy prices according to analysts, strengthening the case for stable cross-border flows. This energy trade is deeply embedded in the economic fabric of both regions. For Quebec, the export of hydroelectric power represents a crucial source of revenue, while for the U.S., it provides access to a steady and reliable supply of clean, renewable energy. This mutually beneficial relationship has been a cornerstone of trade between the two countries, promoting economic stability and environmental sustainability.

In the wake of recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, some policymakers have considered using energy exports as leverage, echoing threats to cut U.S. electricity exports in earlier disputes, to retaliate against what is viewed as an unfair trade practice. The idea is to reduce or stop the flow of electricity to the U.S. as a way to strike back at the tariffs and potentially force a change in U.S. policy. On the surface, this approach may appear to offer a viable means of exerting pressure. However, experts warn that such a move would be fraught with significant risks, both economically and diplomatically.

First and foremost, Quebec's economy is heavily reliant on revenue from hydroelectric exports to the U.S. Any reduction in these energy sales could have serious consequences for the province's economic stability, potentially resulting in job losses and a decrease in investment. The hydroelectric power sector is a major contributor to Quebec's GDP, and recent events, including a tariff threat delaying a green energy bill in Quebec, illustrate how trade tensions can ripple through the policy landscape, while disrupting this source of income could harm the provincial economy.

Additionally, experts caution that reducing energy exports could have long-term ramifications on the energy relationship between Quebec and the northeastern U.S. These two regions have developed a strong and interconnected energy network over the years, and abruptly cutting off the flow of electricity could damage this vital partnership. Legal challenges could arise under existing trade agreements, and even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects among some stakeholders, the situation would grow more complex. Such a move could also undermine trust between the two parties, making future negotiations on energy and other trade issues more difficult.

Another potential consequence of halting energy exports is that U.S. states may seek alternative sources of energy, diminishing Quebec's market share in the long run. As the U.S. has a growing demand for clean energy, especially as it looks to transition away from fossil fuels, and looks to Canada for green power in several regions, cutting off Quebec’s electricity could prompt U.S. states to invest in other forms of energy, including renewables or even nuclear power. This could have a lasting effect on Quebec's position in the U.S. energy market, making it harder for the province to regain its footing.

Moreover, reducing or ceasing energy exports could further exacerbate trade tensions, leading to even greater economic instability. The U.S. could retaliate by imposing additional tariffs on Canadian goods or taking other measures that would negatively impact Canada's economy. This could create a cycle of escalating trade barriers that would hurt both countries and undermine the broader North American trade relationship.

While the concept of using energy exports as a retaliatory tool may seem appealing to some, the experts' advice is clear: the potential economic and diplomatic costs of such a strategy outweigh the short-term benefits. Quebec’s role as an energy supplier to the U.S. is crucial to its own economy, and maintaining a stable, reliable energy trade relationship is essential for both parties. Rather than escalating tensions further, it may be more prudent for Canada and the U.S. to seek diplomatic solutions that preserve trade relations and minimize harm to their economies.

While the idea of using Quebec’s energy exports as leverage in response to U.S. tariffs may appear attractive on the surface, and despite polls showing support for tariffs on energy and minerals among Canadians, it carries significant risks. Experts emphasize the importance of maintaining a stable energy export strategy to protect Quebec’s economy and preserve positive diplomatic relations with the U.S. Both countries have much to lose from further escalating trade tensions, and a more measured approach is likely to yield better outcomes in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Muskrat Falls Financing Restructuring redirects megadam benefits to ratepayers, stabilizes electricity rates, and overhauls federal provincial loan guarantees for the hydro project, addressing cost overruns flagged by the Public Utilities Board in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Key Points

A revised funding model shifting benefits to ratepayers to curb rate hikes linked to Muskrat Falls cost overruns.

✅ Shields ratepayers from megadam cost overruns

✅ Revises federal provincial loan guarantees

✅ Targets stable electricity rates by 2021 and beyond

Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador say they will rewrite the financial structure of the Muskrat Falls hydro project to shield ratepayers from paying for the megadam's cost overruns.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan and Premier Dwight Ball announced Monday that their two governments would scrap the financial structure agreed upon in past federal-provincial loan agreements, moving to a model that redirects benefits, such as a lump sum credit, to ratepayers.

Both politicians called the announcement, which was light on dollar figures, a major milestone in easing residents' fears that electricity rates will spike sharply, as seen with Nova Scotia's debated 14% hike, when the over-budget dam comes fully online next year.
"We are in a far better place today thanks to this comprehensive plan," Ball said.

Ball has said the issue of electricity rates is a top priority for his government, and he has pledged to keep rates near existing levels, but rate mitigation talks with Ottawa have dragged on since April.

A report by the province's Public Utilities Board released Friday forecast an "unprecedented" 75 per cent increase in average domestic rates for island residents in 2021, while Nova Scotia's regulator approved a 14% hike, and reported concerns from industrial customers about their ability to remain competitive.

Costs of the Muskrat Falls megadam on Labrador's Lower Churchill River have ballooned to more than $12.7 billion since the project was approved in 2012, according to the latest estimate of Crown corporation Nalcor Energy.

The dam is set to produce more power than the province can sell. Its existing financial structure would have left electricity ratepayers paying for Muskrat Falls to make up the difference starting in 2021, an issue both governments said Monday has been resolved with the relaunch of financing talks.

"Essentially, you won't pay this on your monthly light bills," Ball said.

But details of how the project will meet financing requirements in coming decades to make up the gap in funds are still to be worked out.

Both Ball and O'Regan criticized previous governments for sanctioning the poorly planned development and again pledged their commitment to easing the burden on residents.

"We promised we would be there to help, and we will be," O'Regan said before announcing a "relaunch" of negotiations around the project's financial structure.

He did not say how much the new setup might cost the federal government, despite earlier federal funding commitments, stressing that the new focus will be on the project's long-term sustainability. "There's no single piece of policy ... that can resolve such a large and complicated mess," O'Regan said.

The two governments also said they will work towards electrifying federal buildings to reduce an anticipated power surplus in the province.

In the short term, the federal government said it would allow for "flexibility" in upcoming cash requirements related to debt servicing, allowing deferral of payments if necessary.

Ball said that flexibility was built in to ensure the plan would still be applicable if costs continue to rise before Muskrat Falls is commissioned.

Political opponents criticized Monday's plan as lacking detail.

"What I heard talked about was an agreement that in the future, there's going to be an agreement," said Progressive Conservative Leader Ches Crosbie. "This was an occasion to reassure people that there's a plan in place to make life here affordable, and I didn't see that happen today."

Others addressed the lingering questions about the project's final cost.

Nalcor's latest financial update has remained unchanged since 2017, though the Muskrat Falls project has seen additional delays related to staffing and software issues.

Dennis Browne, the province's consumer advocate, said the switch to a cost of service model is a significant move that will benefit ratepayers, but he said it's impossible to truly restructure the project while it's a work in progress. "We need to know what the figures are, and we don't have them," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

ERCOT Ancillary Services Clawback and VOLL Pricing summarize PUCT and IMM actions on load shed, real-time pricing adders, clawbacks, and settlement corrections after the 2021 winter storm in the Texas power grid market.

Key Points

Policies addressing clawbacks for unprovided AS and correcting VOLL-based price adders after load shed ended in ERCOT.

✅ PUCT ordered clawbacks for ancillary services not delivered.

✅ IMM urged price correction after firm load shed ceased.

✅ ERCOT's VOLL adder raised costs by $16B during 32 hours.

Potomac Economics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), filed a report with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) that certain payments were made by ERCOT for Ancillary Services (AS) that were not provided, even as ERCOT later issued a winter reliability RFP to procure capacity during subsequent seasons.

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

There were a number of instances during the operating days outlined above in which AS was not provided in real time because of forced outages or derations. For market participants that are not able to meet their AS responsibility, typically the ERCOT operator marks the short amount in the software. This causes the AS responsibility to be effectively removed and the day-ahead AS payment to be clawed back in settlement. However, the ERCOT operators did not complete this task during the winter event, echoing issues like the Ontario IESO phantom demand that cost customers millions, and therefore the "failure to provide" settlements were not invoked in real time.

Removing the operator intervention step and automating the "failure to provide" settlement was contemplated in NPRR947: Clarification to Ancillary Service Supply Responsibility Definition and Improvements to Determining and Charging for Ancillary Service Failed Quantities; however, the NPRR was withdrawn in August 2020 amid ongoing market reform discussions because of the system cost, some complexities related to AS trades, and the implementation of real-time co-optimization.

Invoking the "failure to provide" settlement for all AS that market participants failed to provide during the operating days outlined above will produce market outcomes and settlements consistent with underlying market principles. In this case, the principle is that market participants should not be paid for services that they do not provide, even as a separate ruling found power plants exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under Texas law, underscoring the distinction between obligations and settlements. Whether ERCOT marked the short amount in real-time or not should not affect the settlement of these ancillary services.

On March 3, 2021, the PUCT ordered (a related press release is here) that:

ERCOT shall claw back all payments for ancillary service that were made to an entity that did not provide its required ancillary service during real time on ERCOT operating days starting February 14, 2021 and ending on February 19,2021.

On March 4, 2021, the IMM filed another report and recommended that:

the [PUCT] direct ERCOT to correct the real-time prices from 0:00 February 18,2021, to 09:00 February 19, 2021, to remove the inappropriate pricing intervention that occurred during that time period.

The IMM approvingly noted the PUCT's February 15, 2021 order, which mandated that real-time energy prices reflect firm load shed by setting prices at the value of lost load (VOLL).1

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

This is essential in an energy-only market, like ERCOT's, where the Texas power grid faces recurring crisis risks, because it provides efficient economic signals to increase the electric generation needed to restore the load and service it reliably over the long term.

Conversely, it is equally important that prices not reflect VOLL when the system is not in shortage and load is being served, and experiences in capacity markets show auction payouts can fall sharply under different conditions. The Commission recognized this principle in its Order, expressly stating it is only ERCOT's out-of-market shedding firm load that is required to be reflected in prices. Unfortunately, ERCOT exceeded the mandate of the Commission by continuing to set process at VOLL long after it ceased the firm load shed.

ERCOT recalled the last of the firm load shed instructions at 23:55 on February 17, 2021. Therefore, in order to comply with the Commission Order, the pricing intervention that raised prices to VOLL should have ended immediately at that time. However, ERCOT continued to hold prices at VOLL by inflating the Real-Time On-Line Reliability Deployment Price Adder for an additional 32 hours through the morning of February 19. This decision resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT's market, prompting legislative bailout proposals in Austin, of which roughly $1.5 billion was uplifted to load-serving entities to provide make-whole payments to generators for energy that was not needed or produced.

However, at its March 5, 2021, open meeting (related discussion begins around minute 20), although the PUCT acknowledged the "good points" raised by the IMM, the PUCT was not willing to retrospectively adjust its real-time pricing for this period out of concerns that some related transactions (ICE futures and others) may have already settled and for unintended consequences of such retroactive adjustments.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News