CMAJ article blames isotope crisis on supplier

California fossil fuel grid reliability plan addresses heat wave demand, rolling blackouts, and grid stability by temporarily procuring gas generation while accelerating renewables, storage, and transmission to meet clean energy and carbon-neutral targets by 2045.

Key Points

A stop-gap policy to prevent blackouts by buying fossil power while fast-tracking renewables, storage, and grid upgrades.

✅ Temporary procurement of gas to avoid rolling blackouts

✅ Accelerates renewables, storage, transmission permitting

✅ Aims for carbon neutrality by 2045 without new gas plants

California wants to quit fossil fuels. Just not yet Faced with a fragile electrical grid and the prospect of summertime blackouts, the state agreed to put aside hundreds of millions of dollars to buy power from fossil fuel plants that are scheduled to shut down as soon as next year.

That has prompted a backlash from environmental groups and lawmakers who say Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s approach could end up extending the life of gas plants that have been on-track to close for more than a decade and could threaten the state’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2045.

“The emphasis that the governor has been making is ‘We’re going to be Climate Leaders; we’re going to do 100 percent clean energy; we’re going to lead the nation and the world,’” said V. John White, executive director of the Sacramento-based Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a non-profit group of environmental advocates and clean energy companies. “Yet, at least a part of this plan means going the opposite direction.”

That plan was a last-minute addition to the state’s energy budget, which lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled Legislature reluctantly passed. Backers say it’s necessary to avoid the rolling blackouts like the state experienced during a heat wave in 2020. Critics see a muddled strategy on energy, and not what they expected from a nationally ambitious governor who has made climate action a centerpiece of his agenda.

The legislation, which some Democrats labeled as “lousy” and “crappy,” reflects the reality of climate change. Heat waves are already straining power capacity, and the transition to cleaner energy isn’t coming fast enough to meet immediate needs in the nation’s most populous state.

Officials have warned that outages would be possible this summer, as the grid faces heat wave tests again, with as many as 3.75 million California homes losing power in a worst-case scenario of a West-wide heat wave and insufficient electrical supplies, particularly in the evenings.

It’s also an acknowledgment of the political reality that blackout politics are hazardous to elected officials, even in a state dominated by one party.

Newsom emphasized that the money to prop up the power grid, part of a larger $4.3 billion energy spending package, is meant as a stop-gap measure. The bill allows the Department of Water Resources to spend $2.2 billion on “new emergency and temporary generators, new storage systems, clean generation projects, and funding on extension of existing generation operations, if any occur,” the governor said in a statement after signing the bill.

“Action is needed now to maintain reliable energy service as the State accelerates the transition to clean energy,” Newsom said.

Following the signing, the governor called for the state California Air Resources Board to add a set of ambitious goals to its 2022 Scoping Plan, which lays out California’s path for reducing carbon emissions.

Among Newsom’s requested changes is a move away from fossil fuels, asking state agencies to prepare for an energy transition that avoids the need for new natural gas plants.

Alex Stack, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement that California has been a global leader in reducing pollution and exporting energy policies across Western states, and pointed to Newsom’s recent letter to the Air Resources Board as well as one sent to President Joe Biden outlining how states can work with the federal government to combat climate change.

“California took action to streamline permitting for clean energy projects to accelerate the build out of clean energy that is needed to meet our climate goals and help maintain reliability in the face of extreme heat, wildfires, and drought,” Stack said.

But the prospect of using state money on fossil fuel power, even in the short term, has raised ire among the state’s many environmental advocacy groups, and raised questions about whether California will be able to achieve its goals.

“What is so frustrating about an energy bill like this is that we are at crunch time to meet these goals,” said Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters. “And we’re investing a scale of funding into things that exacerbate those goals.”
 
Emmanuelle Chriqui and Mary Creasman speak during the 2021 Environmental Media Association IMPACT Summit at Pendry West Hollywood on September 2, 2021 in West Hollywood, California. | Jesse Grant/Getty Images for Environmental Media Association

With climate change-induced drought and high temperatures continuing to ravage the West, California anticipates the demand on the grid will only continue to grow. Despite more than a decade of bold posturing and efforts to transition to solar, wind and hydropower, the state worries it doesn’t have enough renewable energy sources on hand to keep the power on in an emergency right now, amid a looming shortage that will test reliability.

The specter of power outages poses a hazard to Newsom, and Democrats in general, especially ahead of November. While the governor is widely expected to sail to reelection, rolling blackouts are a serious political liability — in 2003, they were the catalyst for recalling Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. A lack of power isn’t just about people sweating in the dark, said Steven Maviglio, a longtime Democratic consultant who served as communications director for Davis, it can affect businesses, travel and have an outsized impact on the economy.

It behooves any state official to keep the power on, but, unlike Davis, Newsom is under serious pressure to make sure the state also adheres to its climate goals.

“Gavin Newsom’s brand is based on climate change and clean air, so it’s a little more difficult for him to say ‘well that’s not as important as keeping the power on,’” Maviglio said.

The same bill effectively ends local government control over those projects, for the time being. It hopes to speed up the state’s production of renewable energy sources by giving exclusive authority over the siting of those projects to a single state agency for the next seven years.

Environmental advocates say the state is now scrambling to address an issue they’ve long known was coming. In 2010, California officials set a schedule to retire a number of coastal gas plants that rely on what’s known as once-through cooling systems, which are damaging to the environment, especially marine life, even as regulators weigh more power plants to maintain reliability today. Many of those plants have been retired since 2010, but others have received extensions.

The remaining plants have various deadlines for when they must cease operations, with the soonest being the end of 2023.

Also at issue is the embattled Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, California’s largest electricity source. The Pacific Gas & Electric-owned plant is scheduled to close in 2025, but the strain on the grid has officials considering the possibility of seeking an extension. Newsom said earlier this spring he would be open to extending the life of the plant. Doing so would also require federal approval.

Al Muratsuchi stands and talks into a microphone with a mask on. 
Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi speaks during an Assembly session in Sacramento, Calif., on Jan. 31, 2022. | Rich Pedroncelli/AP Photo

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 1245, a labor union, sees the energy package as a way to preserve Diablo Canyon, and jobs at the plant.

“The value to 1245 PG&E members at Diablo Canyon is clear — funding to keep the plant open,” the union said of the bill.

Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Los Angeles) criticized the bill as “crappy” when it came to the floor in late June, describing it as “a rushed, unvetted and fossil-fuel-heavy response” to the state’s need to bolster the grid.

“The state has had over 12 years to procure and bring online renewable energy generation to replace these once through cooling gas power plants,” Muratsuchi said. “Yet, the state has reneged on its promise to shut down these plants, not once, but twice already.”

Not all details of the state’s energy budget are final. Lawmakers still have $3.8 billion to allocate when they return on Aug. 1 for the final stretch of the year.

Creasman, at California Environmental Voters, said she wants lawmakers to set specific guidelines for how and where it will spend the $2.2 billion when they return in August to dole out the remaining money in the budget. Newsom and legislators also need to ensure that this is the last time California has to spend money on fossil fuel, she said.

“Californians deserve to see what the plan is to make sure we’re not in this position again of having to choose between making climate impacts worse or keeping our lights on,” Creasman said. “That’s a false choice.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

COVID-19 Impact on Global Oil Demand 2020 signals an IEA forecast of declining consumption as travel restrictions curb transport fuels, disrupt energy markets, and shift OPEC and non-OPEC supply dynamics amid economic slowdown.

Key Points

IEA sees first demand drop since 2009 as COVID-19 curbs travel, weakening transport fuels and unsettling energy markets.

✅ IEA base case: 2020 demand at 99.9 mb/d, down 90 kb/d from 2019.

✅ Travel restrictions hit transport fuels; China drives the decline.

✅ Scenarios: low -730 kb/d; high +480 kb/d in 2020.

Global oil demand is expected to decline in 2020 as the impact of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) spreads around the world, constricting travel and broader economic activity, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest oil market forecast.

The situation remains fluid, creating an extraordinary degree of uncertainty over what the full global impact of the virus will be. In the IEA’s central base case, even as global CO2 emissions flatlined in 2019 according to the IEA, demand this year drops for the first time since 2009 because of the deep contraction in oil consumption in China, and major disruptions to global travel and trade.

“The coronavirus crisis is affecting a wide range of energy markets – including coal-fired electricity generation, gas and renewables – but its impact on oil markets is particularly severe because it is stopping people and goods from moving around, dealing a heavy blow to demand for transport fuels,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director. “This is especially true in China, the largest energy consumer in the world, which accounted for more than 80% of global oil demand growth last year. While the repercussions of the virus are spreading to other parts of the world, what happens in China will have major implications for global energy and oil markets.”

The IEA now sees global oil demand at 99.9 million barrels a day in 2020, down around 90,000 barrels a day from 2019. This is a sharp downgrade from the IEA’s forecast in February, which predicted global oil demand would grow by 825,000 barrels a day in 2020.

The short-term outlook for the oil market will ultimately depend on how quickly governments move to contain the coronavirus outbreak, how successful their efforts are, and what lingering impact the global health crisis has on economic activity.

To account for the extreme uncertainty facing energy markets, the IEA has developed two other scenarios for how global oil demand could evolve this year. In a more pessimistic low case, global measures fail to contain the virus, and global demand falls by 730,000 barrels a day in 2020. In a more optimistic high case, the virus is contained quickly around the world, and global demand grows by 480,000 barrels a day.

“We are following the situation extremely closely and will provide regular updates to our forecasts as the picture becomes clearer,” Dr Birol said. “The impact of the coronavirus on oil markets may be temporary. But the longer-term challenges facing the world’s suppliers are not going to go away, especially those heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues. As the IEA has repeatedly said, these producer countries need more dynamic and diversified economies in order to navigate the multiple uncertainties that we see today.”

The IEA also published its medium-term outlook examining the key issues in global demand, supply, refining and trade to 2025, as well as the trajectory of the global energy transition now shaping markets. Following a contraction in 2020 and an expected sharp rebound in 2021, yearly growth in global oil demand is set to slow as consumption of transport fuels grows more slowly and as national net-zero pathways, with Canada needing more electricity to reach net-zero influencing power demand, according to the report. Between 2019 and 2025, global oil demand is expected to grow at an average annual rate of just below 1 million barrels a day. Over the period as whole, demand rises by a total of 5.7 million barrels a day, with China and India accounting for about half of the growth.

At the same time, the world’s oil production capacity is expected to rise by 5.9 million barrels a day, with more than three-quarters of it coming from non-OPEC producers, the report forecasts. But production growth in the United States and other non-OPEC countries is set to lose momentum after 2022, amid shifts in Wall Street's energy strategy linked to policy signals, allowing OPEC producers from the Middle East to turn the taps back up to help keep the global oil market in balance.

The medium-term market report, Oil 2020, also considers the impact of clean energy transitions on oil market trends. Demand growth for gasoline and diesel between 2019 and 2025 is forecast to weaken as countries around the world implement policies to improve efficiency and cut carbon dioxide emissions – and as solar power becomes the cheapest electricity in many markets and electric vehicles increase in popularity. The impact of energy transitions on oil supply remains unclear, with many companies prioritising short-cycle projects for the coming years.

“The coronavirus crisis is adding to the uncertainties the global oil industry faces as it contemplates new investments and business strategies,” Dr Birol said. “The pressures on companies are changing, with European oil majors turning electric to diversify. They need to show that they can deliver not just the energy that economies rely on, but also the emissions reductions that the world needs to help tackle our climate challenge.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Electricity Investment Surpasses Oil and Gas 2016, driven by renewable energy, power grids, and energy efficiency, as IEA reports lower oil and gas spending, rising solar and wind capacity, and declining coal power plant approvals.

Key Points

A 2016 milestone where electricity topped global energy investment, led by renewables, grids, and efficiency, per the IEA.

✅ IEA: electricity investment hit $718b; oil and gas fell to $650b.

✅ Renewables led with $297b; solar and wind unit costs declined.

✅ Coal plant approvals plunged; networks and storage spending rose.

Investments in electricity surpassed those in oil and gas for the first time ever in 2016 on a spending splurge on renewable energy and power grids as the fall in crude prices led to deep cuts, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said.

Total energy investment fell for the second straight year by 12 per cent to US$1.7 trillion compared with 2015, the IEA said. Oil and gas investments plunged 26 per cent to US$650 billion, down by over a quarter in 2016, and electricity generation slipped 5 per cent.

"This decline (in energy investment) is attributed to two reasons," IEA chief economist Laszlo Varro told journalists.

"The reaction of the oil and gas industry to the prolonged period of low oil prices which was a period of harsh investment cuts; and technological progress which is reducing investment costs in both renewable power and in oil and gas," he said.

Oil and gas investment is expected to rebound modestly by 3 per cent in 2017, driven by a 53 per cent upswing in U.S. shale, and spending in Russia and the Middle East, the IEA said in a report.

"The rapid ramp up of U.S. shale activities has triggered an increase of U.S. shale costs of 16 per cent in 2017 after having almost halved from 2014-16," the report said.

The global electricity sector, however, was the largest recipient of energy investment in 2016 for the first time ever, overtaking oil, gas and coal combined, the report said.

"Robust investments in renewable energy and increased spending in electricity networks, which supports the outlook that low-emissions sources will cover most demand growth, made electricity the biggest area of capital investments," Varro said.

Electricity investment worldwide was US$718 billion, lifted by higher spending in power grids which offset the fall in power generation investments.

"Investment in new renewables-based power capacity, at US$297 billion, remained the largest area of electricity spending, despite falling back by 3 per cent as clean energy investment in developing nations slipped, the report said."

Although renewables investments was 3 per cent lower than five years ago, capacity additions were 50 per cent higher and expected output from this capacity about 35 per cent higher, thanks to the fall in unit costs and technology improvements in solar PV and wind generation, the IEA said.

COAL INVESTMENT IS COMING TO AN END

Investments in coal-fired electricity plants fell sharply. Sanctioning of new coal power plants fell to the lowest level in nearly 15 years, reflecting concerns about local air pollution, and emergence of overcapacity and competition from renewables, with renewables poised to eclipse coal in global power generation, notably in China. Coal investments, however, grew in India.

"Coal investment is coming to an end. At the very least, it is coming to a pause," Varro said.

The IEA report said energy efficiency investments continued to expand in 2016, reaching US$231 billion, with most of it going to the building sector globally.

Electric vehicles sales rose 38 per cent in 2016 to 750,000 vehicles at $6 billion, and represented 10 per cent of all transport efficiency spending. Some US$6 billion was spent globally on electronic vehicle charging stations, the IEA said.

Spending on electricity networks and storage continued the steady rise of the past five years, as surging electricity demand puts power systems under strain, reaching an all-time high of US$277 billion in 2016, with 30 per cent of the expansion driven by China’s spending in its distribution system, the report said.

China led the world in energy investments with 21 per cent of global total share, the report said, driven by low-carbon electricity supply and networks projects.

Although oil and gas investments fell in the United States in 2016, its total energy investments rose 16 per cent, even as Americans use less electricity in recent years, on the back of spending in renewables projects, the IEA report said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BNEF 2019 New Energy Outlook projects surging renewable energy demand, aggressive decarbonization, wind and solar cost declines, battery storage growth, coal phase-out, and power market reform to meet Paris Agreement targets through 2050.

Key Points

Bloomberg's NEO 2019 forecasts power demand, renewables growth, and decarbonization pathways through 2050.

✅ Predicts wind/solar to ~50% of global electricity by 2050

✅ Foresees coal decline; Asia transitions slower than Europe

✅ Calls for power market reform and battery integration

In a report that examines the ways in which renewable energy demand is expected to increase, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) finds that “aggressive decarbonization” will be required beyond 2030 to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Focusing on electricity, BNEF’s 2019 New Energy Outlook (NEO) predicts a 62% increase in global power demand, leading to global generating capacity tripling between now and 2050, when wind and solar are expected to make up almost 50% of world electricity, as wind and solar gains indicate, due to decreasing costs.

The report concludes that coal will collapse everywhere except Asia, and, by 2032, there will be more wind and solar electricity than coal-fired electricity. It forecasts that coal’s role in the global power mix will decrease from 37% today, as renewables surpass 30% globally, to 12% by 2050 with the virtual elimination of oil as a power-generating source.

Highlighting regional differences, the report finds that:

Western European economies are already on a strong decarbonization path due to carbon pricing and strong policy support, with offshore wind costs dropping bolstering progress;

by 2040, renewables will comprise 90% of the electricity mix in Europe, with wind and solar accounting for 80%;

the US, with low-priced natural gas, and China, with its coal-fired plants, will transition more slowly even as 30% from wind and solar becomes feasible; and

China’s power sector emissions will peak in 2026 and then fall by more than half over the next 20 years, as solar PV growth accelerates, with wind and solar increasing from 8% to 48% of total electricity generation by 2050.

Power markets must be reformed to ensure wind, solar and batteries are properly remunerated for their contributions to the grid.

The 2019 report finds that wind and solar now represent the cheapest option for adding new power-generating capacity in much of the world, amid record-setting momentum, which is expected to attract USD 13.3 trillion in new investment. While solar, wind, batteries and other renewables are expected to attract USD 10 trillion in investment by 2050, the report warns that curbing emissions will require other technologies as well.

Speaking about the report, Matthias Kimmel, NEO 2019 lead analyst, said solar photovoltaic modules, wind turbines and lithium-ion batteries are set to continue on aggressive cost reduction curves of 28%, 14% and 18%, respectively, for every doubling in global installed capacity. He explained that by 2030, energy generated or stored and dispatched by these technologies will undercut electricity generated by existing coal and gas plants.

To achieve this level of transition and decarbonization, the report stresses, power markets must be reformed to ensure wind, solar and batteries are “properly remunerated for their contributions to the grid.”

Additionally, the 2019 NEO includes a number of updates such as:

• new scenarios on global warming of 2°C above preindustrial levels, electrified heat and road transport, and an updated coal phase-out scenario;
• new sections on coal and gas power technology, the future grid, energy access, and costs related to decarbonization technology such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), biogas, hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear and solar thermal;
• sub-national results for China;
• the addition of commercial electric vehicles;
• an expanded air-conditioning analysis; and
• modeling of Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Turkey and Southeast Asia in greater detail.

Every year, the NEO compares the costs of competing energy technologies, informing projections like US renewables at one-fourth in the near term. The 2019 report brought together 65 market and technology experts from 12 countries to provide their views on how the market might evolve.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Maritime Link HVDC Transmission connects Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to the North American grid, enabling renewable energy imports, subsea cable interconnection, Muskrat Falls hydro power delivery, and lower carbon emissions across Atlantic Canada.

Key Points

A 500 MW HVDC intertie linking Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to deliver Muskrat Falls hydro power.

✅ 500 MW capacity using twin 170 km subsea HVDC cables

✅ Interconnects Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to the North American grid

✅ Enables Muskrat Falls hydro imports, cutting CO2 and costs

For the first time, electricity has been sent between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia through the new Maritime Link.

The 500-megawatt transmission line — which connects Newfoundland to the North American energy grid for the first time and echoes projects like the New England Clean Power Link underway — was tested Friday.

"This changes not only the energy options for Newfoundland and Labrador but also for Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada," said Rick Janega, the CEO of Emera Newfoundland and Labrador, which owns the link.

"It's an historic event in our eyes, one that transforms the electricity system in our region forever."

'On time and on budget'

It will eventually carry power from the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador, where construction is running two years behind schedule and $4 billion over budget, a context in which the Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has also faced delay, to Nova Scotia consumers. It was supposed to start producing power later this year, but the new deadline is 2020 at the earliest.

The project includes two 170-kilometre subsea cables across the Cabot Strait between Cape Ray in southwestern Newfoundland and Point Aconi in Cape Breton.

The two cables, each the width of a two-litre pop bottle, can carry 250 megawatts of high voltage direct current, and rest on the ocean floor at depths up to 470 metres.

This reel of cable arrived in St. John's back in April aboard the Norwegian vessel Nexans Skagerrak, after the first power cable reached Nova Scotia earlier in the project. (Submitted by Emera NL)

The Maritime Link also includes almost 50 kilometres of overland transmission in Nova Scotia and more than 300 kilometres of overland transmission in Newfoundland, paralleling milestones on Site C transmission work in British Columbia.

The link won't go into commercial operation until January 1.

Janega said the $1.6-billion project is on time and on budget.

"We're very pleased to be in a position to be able to say that after seven years of working on this. It's quite an accomplishment," he said.

This Norwegian vessel was used to transport the 5,500 tonne subsea cable. (Submitted by Emera NL)

Once in service, the link will improve electrical interconnections between the Atlantic provinces, aligning with climate adaptation guidance for Canadian utilities.

"For Nova Scotia it will allow it to achieve its 40 per cent renewable energy target in 2020. For Newfoundland it will allow them to shut off the Holyrood generating station, in fact using the Maritime Link in advance of the balance of the project coming into service," Janega said.

Karen Hutt, president and CEO of Nova Scotia Power, which is owned by Emera Inc., calls it a great day for Nova Scotia.

"When it goes into operation in January, the Maritime Link will benefit Nova Scotia Power customers by creating a more stable and secure system, helping reduce carbon emissions, and enabling NSP to purchase power from new sources," Hutt said in a statement.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News