Bullfrog powering DadÂ’s Cookies

Yukon SMR Feasibility Study examines small modular reactors as low-emissions nuclear power for Yukon's grid and remote communities, comparing costs, safety, waste, and reliability with diesel generation, renewables, and energy efficiency.

Key Points

An official assessment of small modular reactors as low-emission power options for Yukon's grid and remote sites.

✅ Compares SMR costs vs diesel, hydro, wind, and solar

✅ Evaluates safety, waste, fuel logistics, decommissioning

✅ Considers remote community loads and grid integration

The Yukon government is looking for ways to reduce the territory's emissions, and wondering if nuclear power is one way to go.

The territory is undertaking a feasibility study, and, as some developers note, combining multiple energy sources can make better projects, to determine whether there's a future for SMRs — small modular reactors — as a low-emissions alternative to things such as diesel power.

The idea, said John Streicker, Yukon's minister of energy, mines and resources, is to bring the SMRs into the Yukon to generate electricity.

"Even the micro ones, you could consider in our remote communities or wherever you've got a point load of energy demand," Streicker said. "Especially electricity demand."

For remote coastal communities elsewhere in Canada, tidal energy is being explored as a low-emissions option as well.

SMRs are nuclear reactors that use fission to produce energy, similar to existing large reactors, but with a smaller power capacity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines reactors as "small" if their output is under 300 MW. A traditional nuclear power plant produces about three times as much power or more.

They're "modular" because they're designed to be factory-assembled, and then installed where needed. 

Several provinces have already signed an agreement supporting the development of SMRs, and in Alberta's energy mix that conversation spans both green and fossil power, and Canada's first grid-scale SMRs could be in place in Ontario by 2028 and Saskatchewan by 2032.

A year ago, the government of Yukon endorsed Canada's SMR action plan, at a time when analysts argue that zero-emission electricity by 2035 is practical and profitable, agreeing to "monitor the progress of SMR technologies throughout Canada with the goal of identifying potential for applicability in our northern jurisdiction."

The territory is now following through by hiring someone to look at whether SMRs could make sense as a cleaner-energy alternative in Yukon. 

The territorial government has set a goal of reducing emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, excluding mining emissions, even as some analyses argue that zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is possible, and "future emissions actions for post-2030 have not yet been identified," reads the government's request for proposals to do the SMR study. 

Streicker acknowledges the potential for nuclear power in Yukon is a bit of "long shot" — but says it's one that can't be ignored.

"We need to look at all possible solutions," he said, as countries such as New Zealand's electricity sector debate their future pathways.

"I don't want to give the sense like we're putting all of our emphasis and energy towards nuclear power. We're not."

According to Streicker, it's nothing more than a study at this point.

Don't bother, researcher says
Still, M.V. Ramana, a professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, said it's a study that's likely a waste of time and money. He says there's been plenty of research already, and to him, SMRs are just not a realistic option for Yukon or anywhere in Canada.

"I would say that, you know, that study can be done in two weeks by a graduate student, essentially, all right? They just have to go look at the literature on SMRs and look at the critical literature on this," Ramana said.

Ramana co-authored a research paper last year, looking at the potential for SMRs in remote communities or mine sites. The conclusion was that SMRs will be too expensive and there won't be enough demand to justify investing in them.

He said nuclear reactors are expensive, which is why their construction has "dried up" in much of the world.

"They generate electricity at very high prices," he said.

'They just have to go look at the literature,' said M.V. Ramana, a professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. (Paul Joseph)
"[For] smaller reactors, the overall costs go down. But the amount of electricity that they will generate goes down even further."

The environmental case is also shaky, according to a statement signed last year by dozens of Canadian environmental and community groups, including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Environmental Law Associaton (CELA). The statement calls SMRs a "dirty, dangerous distraction" from tackling climate change and criticized the federal government for investing in the technology.

"We have to remember that the majority of the rhetoric we hear is from nuclear advocates. And so they are promoting what I would call, and other legal scholars and academics have called, a nuclear fantasy," said Kerrie Blaise of CELA.

Blaise describes the nuclear industry as facing an unknown future, with some of North America's larger reactors set to be decommissioned in the coming years. SMRs are therefore touted as the future.

"They're looking for a solution. And so that I would say climate change presents that timely solution for them."

Blaise argues the same safety and environmental questions exist for SMRs as for any nuclear reactors — such as how to produce and transport fuel safely, what to do with waste, and how to decommission them — and those can't be glossed over in a single-minded pursuit of lower carbon emissions.  

Main focus is still renewables, minister says
Yukon's energy minister agrees, and he's eager to emphasize that the territory is not committed to anything right now beyond a study.

"Every government has a responsibility to do diligence around this," Streicker said.

A solar farm in Old Crow, Yukon. The territory's energy minister says Yukon is still primarily focussed on renewables, and energy efficiency. (Caleb Charlie)
He also dismisses the idea that studying nuclear power is any sort of distraction from his government's response to climate change right now. Yukon's main focus is still renewable energy such as solar and wind power, though Canada's solar progress is often criticized as lagging, increasing efficiency, and connecting Yukon's grid to the hydro project in Atlin, B.C., he said.

Streicker has been open to nuclear energy in the past. As a federal Green Party candidate in 2008, Streicker broke with the party line to suggest that nuclear could be a viable energy alternative. 

He acknowledges that nuclear power is always a hot-button issue, and Yukoners will have strong feelings about it. A lot will depend on how any future regulatory process works, he says.

In taking action on climate, this Arctic community wants to be a beacon to the world
Cameco signs agreement with nuclear reactor company
"There's some people that think it's the 'Hail Mary,' and some people that think it's evil incarnate," he said. 

"Buried deep within Our Clean Future [Yukon's climate change strategy], there's a line in there that says we should keep an eye on other technologies, for example, nuclear. That's what this [study] is — it's to keep an eye on it."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

European Gas Prices hit pre-invasion lows as LNG inflows, EU storage gains, and softer oil markets ease the energy crisis, while recession risks, windfall taxes, and ExxonMobil's challenge shape demand and policy.

Key Points

European gas prices reflect supply, LNG inflows, storage, and policy, shaping energy costs for households and industry.

✅ Month-ahead hit €76.78/MWh, rebounding to €85.50/MWh.

✅ EU storage 83.2% filled; autumn peak exceeded 95%.

✅ Demand tempered by recession risks; LNG inflows offset Russian cuts.

European gas prices have dipped to a level last seen before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February, after warmer weather across the continent eased concerns over shortages and as coal demand dropped across Europe during winter.

The month-ahead European gas future contract dropped as low as €76.78 per megawatt hour on Wednesday, the lowest level in 10 months, amid EU talks on gas price cap strategies that could shape markets, before closing higher at €83.70, according to Refinitiv, a data company.

The invasion roiled global energy markets, serving as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for policymakers, and forced European countries, including industrial powerhouse Germany, to look for alternative suppliers to those funding the Kremlin. Europe had continued to rely on Russian gas even after its 2014 annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.

On Tuesday 83.2% of EU gas storage was filled, data from industry body Gas Infrastructure Europe showed. The EU in May set a target of filling 80% of its gas storage capacity by the start of November to prepare for winter, and weighed emergency electricity measures to curb prices as needed. It hit that target in August, and by mid-November it had peaked at more than 95%.

Gas prices bounced further off the 10-month low on Thursday to reach €85.50 per megawatt hour.

Europe has several months of domestic heating demand ahead, and some industry bosses believe energy shortages could also be a problem next winter, with a worst energy nightmare still possible if supplies tighten. However, traders have also had to weigh the effects of recessions expected in several big European economies, which could dent energy demand.

UK gas prices have also dropped back from their highs earlier this year, and forecasts suggest UK energy bills to drop in April. The day-ahead gas price closed at 155p per therm on Wednesday, compared with 200p/therm at the start of 2022, and more than 500p/therm in August.

Europe’s response to the prospect of gas shortages also included campaigns to reduce energy use – a strategy belatedly adopted by the UK – and windfall taxes on energy companies to help raise revenues for governments, many of which have started expensive subsidies to cushion the impact of high energy prices for households and consumers. Energy companies have enjoyed huge profits at the expense of businesses and households this year, as EU inflation accelerated, but costs remained much the same.

However, the US oil company ExxonMobil on Wednesday launched a legal challenge against EU plans for a windfall tax on oil companies, according to filings by its German and Dutch subsidiaries at the European general court in Luxembourg. ExxonMobil argued that the windfall tax would be “counter-productive” because it said it would result in lower investment in fossil fuel extraction, and that the EU did not have the legal jurisdiction to impose it.

ExxonMobil’s move has prompted anger among European politicians. A message posted on the Twitter account of Paolo Gentiloni, the EU’s commissioner for the economy, on Thursday stated: “Fairness and solidarity, even for corporate giants. #Exxon.”

Oil prices are significantly lower than they were before the start of Russia’s invasion, and only marginally above where they were at the start of 2022. Brent crude oil futures traded at $100 a barrel on 28 February, but were at $81.84 on Thursday.

Oil prices dropped by 1.7% on Thursday. Prices had risen from 12-month lows in early December as traders hoped for increased demand from China after it relaxed its coronavirus restrictions. However, Covid-19 infection numbers are thought to have surged in the country, prompting the US to require travellers from China to show a negative test for the disease and tempering expectations for a rapid increase in oil demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

India Village Electrification hailed by the IEA in World Energy Outlook 2018 showcases rapid energy access progress, universal village power, clean cooking advances via LPG, and Modi-led initiatives, inspiring Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Key Points

A national push to power every Indian village, praised by the IEA for boosting energy access and clean cooking.

✅ Electrified 597,464 villages ahead of schedule in April 2018.

✅ IEA hails India in World Energy Outlook 2018 as star performer.

✅ LPG connections surge via Ujjwala, aiding clean cooking access.

The global energy watchdog International Energy Agency (IEA) has called India's electrification of every village the greatest success story of 2018. In its latest report, World Energy Outlook 2018, the IEA has called India a "star performer" in terms of achieving the big milestone of the providing power to each village. "In particular, one of the greatest success stories in access to energy in 2018 was India completing the electrification of all of its villages," said the IEA. It added that countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh have also achieved the commendable electrification rate of 95% (up from 50% in 2000), and 80% (up from 20% in 2000), respectively, even as Europe's electrification push continues as part of broader transitions.

This 643-page report by the IEA says over 120 million people worldwide gained access to electricity in 2017 and charts growth in the electric car market as part of broader energy trends. For the first time ever, the total number of people without access fell below 1 billion, it said.  The mega plan of providing electricity to 597,464 villages in India was announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his Independence Day speech in 2015. On April 28, 2018, PM Modi confirmed that India had achieved its goal ahead of schedule. "This is one of the greatest achievements in the history of energy," said the IEA.

Praising the Narendra Modi government for making efforts towards lighting up every village in India, the agency said: "Since 2000 around half a billion people have gained access to electricity in India, with political effort over the last five years significantly accelerating progress."

India's achievement of providing universal household electricity access will improve the lives of over 230 million people, said the IEA, even as analyses like a Swedfund report debate some poverty outcomes in electrified areas. For a start, electric lighting makes the use of candles, kerosene and other polluting fuels for lighting redundant, not only saving money (and providing more light) but also seriously improving health, it said.

Though the global energy agency has called India "a success story", and a "bright spot for energy access", it says huge challenges remain in other regions of the world where over 670 million people still live without electricity access. "90% of these people are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, with countries such as Nigeria facing severe shortages," said the report.

Seven decades after independence and nearly three decades after India's economic liberalisation, the Modi government achieved the historic milestone of giving power to every single village of India, 12 days ahead of the deadline set by PM Modi. Leisang in Manipur became the last village to be connected to the grid, while a Delhi energy storage project explores ways to balance supply and demand.

The agency also praised India for tackling a related problem: access to clean cooking facilities. "While an estimated 780 million people in India rely on biomass for cooking, progress is emerging, as India is one of the few countries in the world targeting this "blind spot" of energy policy," it said.

Around 36 million LPG connections have been made since Prime Minister Modi and Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas, Dharmendra Pradhan, launched the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana scheme in May 2016 to provide free connections to families living below the poverty line. In India, around 50 million free LPG stoves and initial refills have been provided to poor households via this scheme since 2015. The government has set a target of providing LPG connections to 80 million households by 2020.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canadian Energy Infrastructure Tariffs are reshaping pipelines, deregulation, and energy independence, as U.S. trade tensions accelerate approvals for Alberta oil sands, Trans Mountain expansion, and CAPP proposals amid regulatory reform and market diversification.

Key Points

U.S. tariff threats drive approvals, infrastructure, and diversification to strengthen Canada energy security.

✅ Tariff risk boosts support for pipelines and export routes

✅ Faster project approvals and deregulation gain political backing

✅ Diversifying markets reduces reliance on U.S. buyers

In recent months, the Canadian energy sector has experienced a shift in public and political attitudes toward infrastructure projects, particularly those related to oil and gas production. This shift has been largely influenced by the threat of tariffs from the United States, as well as growing concerns about energy independence and U.S.-Canada trade tensions more broadly.

Scott Burrows, the CEO of Pembina Pipeline Corp., noted in a conference call that the potential for U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy imports has spurred a renewed sense of urgency and receptiveness toward energy infrastructure projects in Canada. With U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs Trump tariff threat on Canadian imports, particularly a 10% tariff on energy products, there is increasing recognition within Canada that these projects are essential for the country’s long-term economic and energy security.

While the direct impact of the tariffs is not immediate, industry leaders are optimistic about the long-term benefits of deregulation and faster project approvals, even as some see Biden as better for Canada’s energy sector overall. Burrows highlighted that while it will take time for the full effects to materialize, there are significant "tailwinds" in favor of faster energy infrastructure development. This includes the possibility of more streamlined regulatory processes and a shift toward more efficient project timelines, which could significantly benefit the Canadian energy sector.

This changing landscape is particularly important for Alberta’s oil production, which is one of the largest contributors to Canada’s energy output. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has responded to the growing tariff threat by releasing an “energy platform,” outlining recommendations for Ottawa to help mitigate the risks posed by the evolving trade situation. The platform includes calls for improved infrastructure, such as pipelines and transportation systems, and priorities like clean grids and batteries, to ensure that Canadian energy can reach global markets more effectively.

The tariff threat has also sparked a wider conversation about the need for Canada to strengthen its energy infrastructure and reduce its dependency on the U.S. for energy exports. With the potential for escalating trade tensions, there is a growing push for Canadian energy resources to be processed and utilized more domestically, though cutting Quebec’s energy exports during a tariff war. This has led to increased political support for projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which aims to connect Alberta’s oil sands to new markets in Asia via the west coast.

However, the energy sector’s push for deregulation and quicker approvals has raised concerns among environmental groups and Indigenous communities. Critics argue that fast-tracking energy projects could lead to inadequate environmental assessments and greater risks to local ecosystems. These concerns underscore the tension between economic development and environmental protection in the energy sector.

Despite these concerns, there is a clear consensus that Canada’s energy industry needs to evolve to meet the challenges posed by shifting trade dynamics, even as polls show support for energy and mineral tariffs in the current dispute. The proposed U.S. tariffs have made it increasingly clear that the country’s energy infrastructure needs significant investment and modernization to ensure that Canada can maintain its status as a reliable and competitive energy supplier on the global stage.

As the deadline for the tariff decision approaches, and as Ford threatens to cut U.S. electricity exports, Canada’s energy sector is bracing for the potential fallout, while also preparing to capitalize on any opportunities that may arise from the changing trade environment. The next few months will be critical in determining how Canadian policymakers, businesses, and environmental groups navigate the complex intersection of energy, trade, and regulatory reform.

While the threat of U.S. tariffs may be unsettling, it is also serving as a catalyst for much-needed changes in Canada’s energy policy. The push for faster approvals and deregulation may help address some of the immediate concerns facing the sector, but it will be crucial for the government to balance economic interests with environmental and social considerations as the country moves forward in its energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News