Seeing the light

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia, led by Southern Nuclear, Georgia Power, and Bechtel, adding 2,234 MWe of carbon-free baseload power with DOE loan guarantees.

Key Points

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are AP1000 reactors in Georgia delivering 2,234 MWe of low-carbon baseload electricity.

✅ Each unit: Westinghouse AP1000, 1,117 MWe capacity.

✅ Managed by Southern Nuclear, built by Bechtel.

✅ DOE loan guarantees support financing and risk.

Construction is ongoing for two new nuclear reactors, Units 3 and 4, at Georgia Power's Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro, Ga. the first new nuclear reactors to be constructed in the United Stated in 30 years, mirroring a new U.S. reactor startup that will provide electricity to more than 500,000 homes and businesses once operational.

Construction on Unit 3 started in March 2013 with an expected completion date of November 2021. For Unit 4, work began in November 2013 with a targeted delivery date of November 2022. Each unit houses a Westinghouse AP1000 (Advanced Passive) nuclear reactor that can generate about 1,117 megawatts (MWe). The reactor pressure vessels and steam generators are from Doosan, a South Korean firm.

The pouring of concrete was delayed to 2013 due to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuing a license amendment which permitted the use of higher-strength concrete for the foundations of the reactors, eliminating the need to make additional modifications to reinforcing steel bar.

The work is occurring in the middle of an operational nuclear facility, and the construction area contains many cranes and storage areas for the prefabricated parts being installed. Space also is needed for various trucks making deliveries, especially concrete.

The reactor buildings, circular in shape, are several hundred feet apart from one another and each one has an annex building and a turbine island structure. The estimated total price for the project is expected in the $18.7 billion range. Bechtel Corporation, which built Units 1 and 2, was brought in January 2017 to take over the construction that is being overseen by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNOC), which operates the plant.

The project will require the equivalent of 3,375 miles of sidewalk; the towers for Units 3 and 4 are 60 stories high and have two million pound CA modules; the office space for both units is 300,000 sq. ft.; and there are more than 8,000 construction workers over 30 percent being military veterans. The new reactors will create 800 permanent jobs.

Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power took over management of the construction project in 2017 after Westinghouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The plant, built in the late 1980s with Unit 1 becoming operational in 1987 and Unit 2 in 1989, is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7 percent), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30 percent), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent) and Dalton Utilities (1.6 percent).

"Significant progress has been made on the construction of Vogtle 3 and 4 since the transition to Southern Nuclear following the Westinghouse bankruptcy," said Paul Bowers, Chairman, President and CEO of Georgia Power. "While there will always be challenges in building the first new nuclear units in this country in more than 30 years, we remain focused on reducing project risk and maintaining the current project momentum in order to provide our customers with a new carbon-free energy source that will put downward pressure on rates for 60 to 80 years."

The Vogtle and Hatch nuclear plants currently provide more than 20 percent of Georgia's annual electricity needs. Vogtle will be the only four-unit nuclear facility in the country. The energy is needed to meet the rising demand for electricity as the state expects to have more than four million new residents by 2030.

The plant's expansion is the largest ongoing construction project in Georgia and one of the largest in the state's history, while comparable refurbishments such as the Bruce reactor overhaul progress in Canada. Last March an agreement was signed to secure approximately $1.67 billion in additional Department of Energy loan guarantees. Georgia Power previously secured loan guarantees of $3.46 billion.

The signing highlighted the placement of the top of the containment vessel for Unit 3, echoing the Hinkley Point C roof lift seen in the U.K., which signified that all modules and large components had been placed inside it. The containment vessel is a high-integrity steel structure that houses critical plant components. The top head is 130 ft. in diameter, 37 ft. tall, and weighs nearly 1.5 million lbs. It is comprised of 58 large plates, welded together with each more than 1.5 in. thick.

"From the very beginning, public and private partners have stood with us," said Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Tom Fanning. "Everyone involved in the project remains focused on sustaining our momentum."

Bechtel has completed more than 80 percent of the project, and the major milestones for 2019 have been met, aligning with global nuclear milestones reported across the industry, including setting the Unit 4 pressurizer inside the containment vessel last February, which will provide pressure control inside the reactor coolant system. More specialized construction workers, including craft labor, have been hired via the addition of approximately 300 pipefitters and 350 electricians since November 2018. Another 500 to 1,000 craft workers have been more recently brought in.

A key accomplishment occurred last December when 1,300 cu. yds. of concrete were poured inside the Unit 4 containment vessel during a 21-hour operation that involved more than 100 workers and more than 120 truckloads of concrete. In 2018 alone, more than 23,000 cu. yds. of concrete were poured part of the nearly 600,000 cu. yds. placed since construction started, and the installation of more than 16,200 yds. of piping.

Progress also has been solid for Unit 3. Last January the integrated head package (IHP) was set inside the containment vessel. The IHP, weighing 475,000 lbs. and standing 48 ft. tall, combines several separate components in one assembly and allows the rapid removal of the reactor vessel head during a refueling outage. One month earlier, the placement of the third and final ring for containment vessel, and the placement of the fourth and final reactor coolant pump (RCP, 375,000 lbs.), were executed.

"Weighing just under 2 million pounds, approximately 38 feet high and with a diameter of 130 feet, the ring is the fourth of five sections that make up the containment vessel," stated a Georgia Power press release. "The RCPs are mounted to the steam generator and serve a critical part of the reactor coolant system, circulating water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel, allowing sufficient heat transfer for safe plant operation. In the same month, the Unit 3 shield building with additional double-decker panels, was placed.

According to a construction update from Georgia Power, a total of eight six-panel sections have been placed, with each one measuring 20 ft. tall and 114 ft. wide, weighing up to 300,000 lbs. To date, more than half of the shield building panels have been placed for Unit 3. The shield building panels, fabricated in Newport News, Va., provide structural support to the containment cooling water supply and protect the containment vessel, which houses the reactor vessel.

Building the reactors is challenging due to the design, reflecting lessons from advanced reactors now being deployed. Unit 3 will have 157 fuel assemblies, with each being a little over 14 ft. long. They are crucial to fuelling the reactor, and once the initial fueling is completed, nearly one-third of the fuel assemblies will be replaced for each re-fuelling operation. In addition to the Unit 3 containment top, placement crews installed three low-pressure turbine rotors and the generator rotor inside the unit's turbine building.

Last November, major systems testing got underway at Unit 3 as the site continues to transition from construction toward system operations. The Open Vessel Testing will demonstrate how water flows from the key safety systems into the reactor vessel ensuring the paths are not blocked or constricted.

"This is a significant step on our path towards operations," said Glen Chick, Vogtle 3 & 4 construction executive vice president. "[This] will prepare the unit for cold hydro testing and hot functional testing next year both critical tests required ahead of initial fuel load."

It also confirms that the pumps, motors, valves, pipes and other components function as designed, a reminder of how issues like the South Carolina plant leak can disrupt operations when systems falter.

"It follows the Integrated Flush process, which began in August, to push water through system piping and mechanical components that feed into the Unit 3 reactor vessel and reactor coolant loops for the first time," stated a press release. "Significant progress continues ... including the placement of the final reinforced concrete portion of the Unit 4 shield building. The 148-cubic yard placement took eight hours to complete and, once cured, allows for the placement of the first course of double-decker panels. Also, the upper inner casing for the Unit 3 high-pressure turbine has been placed, signifying the completion of the centerline alignment, which will mean minimal vibration and less stress on the rotors during operations, resulting in more efficient power generation."

The turbine rotors, each weighing approximately 200 tons and rotating at 1,800 revolutions per-minute, pass steam through the turbine blades to power the generator.

The placement of the middle containment vessel ring for Unit 4 was completed in early July. This required several cranes to work in tandem as the 51-ft. tall ring weighed 2.4 million lbs. and had dozens of individual steel plates that were fabricated on site.

A key part of the construction progress was made in late July with the order of the first nuclear fuel load for Unit 3, which consists of 157 fuel assemblies with each measuring 14 ft. tall.

On May 7, Unit 3 was energized (permanently powered), which was essential to perform the testing for the unit. Prior to this, the plant equipment had been running on temporary construction power.

"[This] is a major first step in transitioning the project from construction toward system operations," Chick said.

Construction of the north side of the Unit 3 Auxiliary Building (AB) has progressed with both the floor and roof modules being set. Substantial work also occurred on the steel and concrete that forms the remaining walls and the north AB roof at elevation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nova Scotia Energy Modernization Act proposes an independent system operator, focused energy regulation, coal phase-out by 2030, renewable integration, transmission upgrades, and competitive market access to boost consumer trust and grid reliability across the province.

Key Points

Legislation to create an independent system operator and energy regulator, enabling coal phase-out and renewable integration.

✅ Transfers grid control from Nova Scotia Power to an ISO

✅ Establishes a focused energy regulator for multi-sector oversight

✅ Accelerates coal retirement, renewables build-out, and grid upgrades

Nova Scotia is poised for a significant overhaul in how its electricity grid operates, with the electricity market headed for a reshuffle as the province vows changes, following a government announcement that will strip the current electric utility of its grid access control. This move is part of a broader initiative to help the province achieve its ambitious energy objectives, including the cessation of coal usage by 2030.

The announcement came from Tory Rushton, the Minister of Natural Resources, who highlighted the recommendations from the Clean Electricity Task Force's report to make the electricity system more accountable to Nova Scotians according to the authors. The report suggests the creation of two distinct entities: an autonomous system operator for energy system planning and an independent body for energy regulation.

Minister Rushton expressed the government's agreement with these recommendations, while the premier had earlier urged regulators to reject a 14% rate hike to protect customers, stating plans to introduce a new Energy Modernization Act in the next legislative session.

Under the proposed changes, Nova Scotia Power, a privately-owned entity, will retain its operational role but will relinquish control over the electricity grid. This responsibility will shift to an independent system operator, aiming to foster competitive practices essential for phasing out coal—currently a major source of the province’s electricity.

Additionally, the existing Utility and Review Board, which recently approved a 14% rate increase despite political opposition, will undergo rebranding to become the Nova Scotia Regulatory and Appeals Board, reflecting a broader mandate beyond energy. Its electricity-related duties will be transferred to the newly proposed Nova Scotia Energy Board, which will oversee various energy sectors including electricity, natural gas, and retail gasoline.

The task force, led by Alison Scott, a former deputy energy minister, and John MacIsaac, an ex-executive of Nalcor Energy, was established by the province in April 2023 to determine the needs of the electrical system in meeting Nova Scotia's environmental goals.

Minister Rushton praised the report for providing a clear direction towards achieving the province's 2030 environmental targets and beyond. He estimated that establishing the recommended bodies would take 18 months to two years, and noted the government cannot order the utility to cut rates under current law, promising job security for current employees of Nova Scotia Power and the Utility and Review Board throughout the transition.

The report advocates for the new system operator to improve consumer trust by distancing electricity system decisions from Nova Scotia Power's corporate interests. It also critiques the current breadth of the Utility and Review Board's mandate as overly extensive for addressing the energy transition's long-term requirements.

Nova Scotia Power's president, Peter Gregg, welcomed the recommendations, emphasizing their role in the province's shift towards renewable energy, as neighboring jurisdictions like P.E.I. explore community generation to build resilience, he highlighted the importance of a focused energy regulator and a dedicated system operator in advancing essential projects for reliable customer service.

The task force's 12 recommendations also include the requirement for Nova Scotia Power to submit an annual asset management plan for regulatory approval and to produce reports on vegetation and wood pole management. It suggests the government assess Ontario's hydro policies for potential adaptation in Nova Scotia and calls for upgrades to the transmission grid infrastructure, with projected costs detailed by Stantec.

Alison Scott remarked on the comparative expense of coal power against renewable sources like wind, suggesting that investments in the grid to support renewables would be economically beneficial in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Western Lithium Supply Localization is accelerating as EV battery makers diversify from China, boosting lithium hydroxide sourcing in North America and Europe, amid Covid-19 disruptions and rising prices, with geothermal brines and local processing.

Key Points

An industry shift to source lithium and processing near EV hubs, reducing China reliance and supply chain risk.

✅ EV makers seek North American and European lithium hydroxide

✅ Prices rise amid Covid-19 and logistics constraints

✅ New extraction: geothermal and oilfield brine projects

The global outbreak of coronavirus will accelerate efforts by western carmakers to localise supplies of lithium for electric car batteries, according to US producer Livent.

The industry was keen to diversify away from China, which produces the bulk of the world’s lithium, a critical material for lithium-ion batteries, said Paul Graves, Livent’s chief executive.

“It’s a conversation that’s starting to happen that was not happening even six months ago,” especially in the US, the former Goldman Sachs banker added.

China produced about 79 per cent of the lithium hydroxide used in electric car batteries last year, according to consultancy CRU, a supply chain that has been disrupted by the virus outbreak and EV shortages in some markets.

Prices for lithium hydroxide rose 3.1 per cent last month, their first increase since May 2018, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, due to the impact of the Covid-19 bug.

Chinese lithium producer Ganfeng Lithium, which supplies major carmakers from Tesla to Volkswagen, said it had raised prices by less than 10 per cent, due to higher production costs and logistical difficulties.

“We can get lithium from lots of places . . . is that really something we’re prepared to rely upon?” Mr Graves said. “People are going to relook at supply chains, including battery recycling initiatives that enhance resilience, and relook at their integrity . . . and they’re going to say is there something we need to do to change our supply chains to make them more shockproof?”

General Motors last week said it was looking to source battery minerals such as lithium and nickel from North America for its new range of electric cars that will use cells made in Ohio by South Korea’s LG Chem.

“Some of these critical minerals could be challenging to obtain; it’s not just cobalt you need to be concerned about but also battery-grade nickel and lithium as well,” said Andy Oury, a lead engineer for batteries at GM. “We’re doing all of this with an eye to sourcing as much of the raw material from North America as possible.”

However, George Heppel, an analyst at CRU, warned it would be difficult to compete with China on costs. “China is always going to be the most competitive place to buy battery raw materials. That’s not likely to change anytime soon,” he said.

Livent, which extracts lithium from brines in northern Argentina, is looking at extracting the mineral from geothermal resources in the US and also wants to build a processing plant in Europe.

The Philadelphia-based company is also working with Canadian start-up E3 Metals to extract lithium from brines in Alberta's oil and gasfields for new projects in Canada.

“We’ll look at doing more in the US and more in Europe,” said Mr Graves, underscoring evolving Canada-U.S. collaboration across EV supply chains.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News