AREVA and China strengthen links

BC Hydro Rate Freeze delivers immediate relief on electricity rates in British Columbia, reversing a planned 3% hike, as BCUC oversight, a utility review, and Site C project debates shape provincial energy policy.

Key Points

A one-year provincial policy halting BC Hydro electricity rate hikes while a utility review finds cost savings.

✅ Freeze replaces planned 3% hike approved by BCUC.

✅ Government to conduct comprehensive BC Hydro review.

✅ Critics warn $150M revenue loss impacts capital projects.

British Columbia's NDP government has announced it will freeze BC Hydro rates effective immediately, fulfilling a key election promise.

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister Michelle Mungall says hydro rates have gone up by more than 24 per cent in the last four years and by more than 70 per cent since 2001, reflecting proposals such as a 3.75% increase over two years announced previously.

"After years of escalating electricity costs, British Columbians deserve a break on their bills," Mungall said in a news release.

BC Hydro had been approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission to increase the rate by three per cent next year, but Mungall said it will pull back its request in order to comply with the freeze.

In the meantime, the government says it will undertake a comprehensive review of the utility meant to identify cost-savings measures for customers often asked to pay an extra $2 a month on electricity bills.

The Liberal critic, Tracy Redies, says the one year rate freeze is going to cost BC Hydro, calling it a distraction from the bigger issue of the future of the Site C project and the oversight of a BC Hydro fund surplus as well.

"A one year rate freeze costs Hydro $150 million," Redies said. "That means there's $150 million less to invest in capital projects and other investments that the utility needs to make."

"This is putting off decisions that should be made today to the future."

Recommendations from the review — including possible new rates — will be implemented starting in April 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

UK power grid bottleneck is stalling renewable energy, with connection queues, planning delays, and transmission infrastructure gaps raising costs, slowing decarbonization, and deterring investment as government considers reforms led by a new chief adviser.

Key Points

Delays and capacity gaps that hinder connecting new generation and demand, raising costs and slowing decarbonization.

✅ Connection queues delay projects for years

✅ Planning and NIMBY barriers stall transmission builds

✅ Investment costs on bills risk political pushback

During his three decades at investment bank Morgan Stanley, Franck Petitgas developed a reputation for solving problems that vexed others. Fixing the UK’s creaking power grid could be his most challenging task yet.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak appointed Petitgas as his chief business adviser, and the former financier has been pushing to tackle the gridlock that’s left projects waiting endlessly for a connection, an issue he sees as one of the biggest problems for industry.

But there are no easy solutions to tackle the years-long queue to get on the grid or the drawn-out planning process for building clean power generation, with the energy transition stalled by supply delays compounding the problem. And sluggish progress in expanding and improving the electricity network is preventing the construction of new housing developments and offices, as well as slowing the transition to greener power.

That transition has already taken a knock after Sunak last week controversially watered down some of the UK’s climate ambitions, citing in part the cost to consumers. He also acknowledged the issues surrounding the grid and promised the “most transformative plans” in response, drawing on lessons from Europe’s power crisis where applicable. Those are due to be unveiled within weeks. 

Shortly after his appointment, Petitgas offered reassurances to business leaders at a meeting in Downing Street that solutions were being worked on, according to people familiar with the matter. But there’s a lack of confidence across business that enough will be done.

Cost is a big factor in the expansion of the electricity grid, and some argue a state-owned generation model could ease bills over time. Improving the onshore network alone could require investment of between £100 billion and £240 billion ($122-$293 billion) by 2050, according to a government analysis last year. 

With network expansion funded through power bills, that’s a big ask, particularly with Sunak trailing in polls ahead of an election expected next year.

“It’s very difficult for politicians to say more money should be on bills,” said Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of Energy UK, a trade body. “So you get to a situation where no one wants to pay for the infrastructure investment until it’s really sticky, and that’s where we’ve got to with the grid.”

There are huge competitive and economic implications if the UK falls further behind. With US President Joe Biden spending an estimated $370 billion on climate measures through his Inflation Reduction Act, and China already a world leader in electric vehicles, Britain’s grid inaction is holding it back in the global race to decarbonize, said Jess Ralston, an analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think tank.

“The UK is dithering and delaying, and not making any strategic decisions,” she said. “You can see companies just saying ‘I’m going to the US, or I’m going to China’.” 

In a statement, the government said it’s a “priority to speed up the time taken to connect new power generators and power consumers to the grid.” It added that it’s taking “significant steps to accelerate grid infrastructure,” including support for new Channel interconnectors announced this year.

The government expects demand for electricity to double by 2035 and that will mean more generation that needs to be linked up to the network by cables and pylons. Local grids will also have to expand to accommodate more connection points for electric vehicles and homes, and invest in large-scale energy storage capacity to balance supply.

But so far, the rapid rise in renewable energy investment has not been accompanied by matching spend on the power network, according to BloombergNEF, a pattern seen in Germany’s grid expansion woes as well.

“The pace and scale of what we now have to deliver is significantly different from the last few decades,” said Carl Trowell, president of UK strategic infrastructure at National Grid. “It’s a national endeavor.”

In June, Electricity Networks Commissioner Nick Winser sent the government recommendations for how to accelerate construction of more transmission infrastructure. He said efforts to decarbonize the power sector will be “wasted if we cannot get the power to homes and businesses.”

“We need a seriously stronger sense of urgency,” said Kevin O’Donovan, country manager for Statkraft UK, which is holding off investment in four wind farms and two solar projects due to grid connection delays.

In addition to cost, the other major stumbling block is planning. Politicians in the governing Conservative Party are wary of angering voters with new infrastructure in rural areas that typically vote Tory. Across the country, “Not In My Back Yard” campaigners – NIMBYs — pose a major challenge to projects.

Petitgas, 62, retired from Morgan Stanley last year after nearly 30 years at the bank, where he led its international division from London. The issues over connections and planning have been repeatedly pointed out to Petitgas by investors and trade groups over a series of meetings this year, according to people familiar with the matter, requesting anonymity discussing private talks.

Yet with a general election looming and the issue plagued by political headaches, many are skeptical that Sunak can find the solutions needed.

One business chief said Downing Street considers the issue too tricky and expensive to tackle in the short-term. Others are concerned that while Petitgas has license from Sunak, he doesn’t have influence across the relevant departments to get grids to the top of the agenda.

Wind Farms

Multiple parts of the UK’s climate plans are under pressure. Earlier this month, an auction for contracts to build new wind farms received zero bids from developers, even as wind leads the power mix in many regions, marking yet another green setback. 

The UK is already behind on its target of having 50 gigawatts of offshore wind built by 2030, up from 14 GW today. The challenge is accelerating development without railroading local communities.

Within Sunak’s Conservative Party, some lawmakers are pushing back on new infrastructure in their local areas. A group including Environment Secretary Therese Coffey and former Home Secretary Priti Patel is campaigning against building new pylons across a stretch of eastern England.

According to Adam Bell, director of policy at consultancy Stonehaven, backbench pressure means Sunak is unlikely to take major action on the grid in the near term. He doesn’t see the prime minister accepting Winser’s recommendations, least of all accelerating planning decisions.

“Over the last year, Sunak has favored party management over things that will benefit the country,” Bell said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Line connects Bipole III to Minnesota, raising export capacity, as NEB hearings weigh Indigenous rights, treaty obligations, environmental assessment, cumulative effects, and cross-border hydroelectric infrastructure impacts, land access, socio-economic concerns, and regulatory review.

Key Points

A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba to Minnesota under review on Indigenous rights and environment concerns.

✅ Connects Bipole III to Minnesota to boost exports

✅ NEB hearings include Indigenous rights and treaty issues

✅ Environmental and access impacts debated in regulatory review

Concerned Indigenous groups asked the National Energy Board this week to take into consideration existing and future impacts and treaty rights, which have prompted a halt to Site C work elsewhere, when considering whether to OK a new hydro transmission line between Manitoba and Minnesota.

Friday was the last day of the oral traditional evidence hearings in Winnipeg on Manitoba Hydro's Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission project.

The international project will connect Manitoba Hydro's Bipole III transmission line to Minnesota and increase the province's electricity export capacity to 3185 MW from 2300 MW.

#google#

During the hearings Indigenous groups brought forward concerns and evidence of environmental degradation, echoing Site C dam opponents in other regions, and restricted access to traditional lands.

Ramona Neckoway, a member of the Nelson House First Nation, talked about her concern about the scope of Manitoba Hydro's application to the NEB.

"It's only concerned with a narrow 213 km corridor and thus it erases the histories, socio-economic impacts and the environmental degradation attached to this energy source," said Neckoway.

Prior to the hearings the board stated it did not intend to assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of upstream or downstream facilities associated with electricity production, even as a utilities watchdog on Site C stability raised questions elsewhere.

However, the board did hear evidence from upstream and downstream affected communities despite objection from Manitoba Hydro lawyers.

"Manitoba Hydro objected to us being here, saying that we are irrelevant, but we are not irrelevant," said Elder Tommy Monias from Cross Lake First Nation.

Manitoba Hydro representative Bruce Owen said, "We respect the NEB hearing process and look forward to the input of all interested parties."

The hearings provided a rare opportunity for First Nations communities, similar to Ontario First Nations urging action, to voice their concerns about the line on a federal level.

"One of the hopes is that this project can't be built until a system-wide assessment is made," said Dr. Peter Kulchyski, an expert witness for the southern chiefs organization and professor of Native Studies at the University of Manitoba.

Hearings continue

The line is already under construction on the American side of the border as the NEB public hearings continue until June 22 with cross examinations and final arguments from Manitoba Hydro and intervenor groups.

The NEB's final decision on the Manitoba-Minnesota transmission line, amid an energy board delay recommendation, will be made before March 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

London Gateway All-Electric Berth enables shore power and cold ironing for container ships, cutting emissions, improving efficiency, and supporting green logistics, IMO targets, and UK net-zero goals through grid connection and port electrification.

Key Points

It is a shore power berth supplying electricity to ships, cutting emissions and costs while boosting port efficiency.

✅ Grid connection enables cold ironing for container ships

✅ Supports IMO decarbonization and UK net-zero goals

✅ Stabilizes energy costs versus marine fuels

London Gateway, one of the UK’s premier deep-water ports, has unveiled the world’s first all-electric berth, marking a significant milestone in sustainable port operations. This innovative development aims to enhance the port's capacity while reducing its environmental impact. The all-electric berth, which powers vessels using electricity, similar to emerging offshore vessel charging solutions, instead of traditional fuel sources, is expected to greatly improve operational efficiency and cut emissions from ships docking at the port.

The launch of this electric berth is part of London Gateway’s broader strategy to become a leader in green logistics, with parallels in electric truck deployments at California ports that support port decarbonization, aligning with the UK’s ambitious climate goals. By transitioning to electric power, the port reduces reliance on fossil fuels and significantly lowers carbon emissions, contributing to a cleaner environment and supporting the maritime industry’s transition towards sustainability.

The berth will provide cleaner power to container ships, enabling them to connect to the grid while docked, similar to electric ships on the B.C. coast, rather than running their engines, which traditionally contribute to pollution. This innovation supports the UK's broader push for decarbonizing its transportation and logistics sector, especially as the global shipping industry faces increasing pressure to reduce its carbon footprint.

The new infrastructure is expected to increase London Gateway’s operational capacity, allowing for a higher volume of traffic while simultaneously addressing the environmental challenges posed by growing port activities. By integrating advanced technologies like the all-electric berth, and advances such as battery-electric high-speed ferries, the port can handle more shipments without expanding its reliance on traditional fuel-based power sources. This could lead to increased cargo throughput, as shipping lines are incentivized to use a greener, more efficient port for their operations.

The project aligns with broader global trends, including electric flying ferries in Berlin, as ports and shipping companies seek to meet international standards set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other regulatory bodies. The IMO has set aggressive targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, and the UK has pledged to be net-zero by 2050, with the shipping sector playing a crucial role in that transition.

In addition to its environmental benefits, the electric berth also helps reduce the operational costs for shipping lines, as seen with electric ferries scaling in B.C. programs across the sector. Traditional fuel costs can be volatile, whereas electric power offers a more stable and predictable expense. This cost stability could make London Gateway an even more attractive port for international shipping companies, further boosting its competitive position in the global market.

Furthermore, the project is expected to have broader economic benefits, generating jobs and fostering innovation, such as hydrogen crane projects in Vancouver, within the green technology and maritime sectors. London Gateway has already made significant strides in sustainable practices, including a focus on automated systems and energy-efficient logistics solutions. The introduction of the all-electric berth is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at strengthening the port’s sustainability credentials.

This groundbreaking development sets a precedent for other global ports to adopt similar sustainable technologies. As more ports embrace electrification and other green solutions, the shipping industry could experience a dramatic reduction in its environmental footprint. This shift could have a cascading effect on the wider logistics and supply chain industries, leading to cleaner and more efficient global trade.

London Gateway’s all-electric berth represents a forward-thinking approach to the challenges of climate change and the need for sustainability in the maritime sector. With its ability to reduce emissions, improve port capacity, and enhance operational efficiency, this pioneering project is poised to reshape the future of global shipping. As more ports around the world follow suit, the potential for widespread environmental impact in the shipping industry is significant, providing hope for a greener future in international trade.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News