Boom and bust in the uranium industry

By The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel


NFPA 70e Training

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$199
Coupon Price:
$149
Reserve Your Seat Today
The uranium industry was born on the west end of Energy Alley, the run from Green River, Utah, to Rifle. It has burst into bloom and sputtered to obscurity more than once.

Like the half-lives by which radiation is judged to decay, though, the industry never has died. Two companies are burrowing into the red bluffs and canyons of western Colorado and eastern Utah to dig out uranium and start the process of generating electricity.

Although the history of the uranium industry in the region goes back to Madame Curie and her discoveries in the late 19th Century, the supply is far from played out.

Miners dug out about 250 million pounds of uranium for the World II and Cold War efforts, said George Glasier, president and CEO of Energy Fuels Inc., a Canadian, publicly traded company.

“We got the easy stuff the first time,” Glasier said.

Now, determinations of how much uranium is available depend on its value.

“I believe there are 125 million pounds in this immediate area” that can be produced for $45 a pound, Glasier said. “If it goes to $100 (a pound) we’ve got 300 million or 400 million.”

One estimate for a small portion of land in the Uravan Mineral Belt, 31 tracts, is the those lands being leased out by the U.S. Department of Energy contain 130 million pounds of uranium.

The United States now consumes about 50 million pounds of uranium oxide a year, said Glenn McGrath of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Though less optimistic about the size of the resource than Glasier, McGrath said the United States will have to turn more and more inward as it looks for secure sources of nuclear energy.

Several factors weigh in on the market value and importance of uranium that reaches the outside world via western ColoradoÂ’s Energy Alley.

Much of the uranium needed for the rods that now fire the plants has come from demilitarized uranium left over from the Cold War, said Jim Burnell, senior minerals geologist for the Colorado Geological Survey.

Two major international suppliers of uranium, meanwhile, are out of commission temporarily and possibly permanently. The Cigar Lake Mine in Canada flooded, and the Olympic Dam mine in Australia is out of production because of a shaft accident.

“It’s a very real issue that we are fairly dependent on uranium from other sources than the United States,” McGrath said.

While issues such as national security and the availability of uranium factor into its value, there are other factors pushing nuclear power back to prominence.

Population growth, increasing demand for electricity to power a growing variety of devices, from refrigerators to computers, all are pushing up the need for electricity-generating fuel.

“Opinions vary regarding the future of nuclear power, but it is a fact that existing U.S. plants are performing well,” the U.S. Energy Information Administration says of nuclear power, noting nuclear power plants now operate at a 90 percent capacity factor, compared to 56 percent in 1980.

Fuel costs for nuclear fuel average less than one-half cent per kilowatt hour, well below the costs of major competing fossil fuels, the Energy Information Administration analysis said.

Production costs for nuclear power, operation and maintenance plus fuel costs, are also low, averaging 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. That cost roughly matches coal and is significantly below the costs of operating a natural gas plant, the Energy Information Administration said.

Nuclear power now provides 20 percent of the United StatesÂ’ electricity, a portion that is likely to increase as 30 nuclear plants that are under construction come online, according to federal estimates.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, meanwhile, is reviewing 13 combined applications for 22 more nuclear power plants.

It could take 50 years to produce the uranium lodged deep beneath the sandstone and sagebrush of the west end of the most important 150 miles, Glasier said, because the industry is limited by milling capacity.

Energy FuelsÂ’ planned mill near Naturita and Denison MinesÂ’ mill in Blanding, Utah, together will produce a combined 7 million to 10 million pounds a year, Glasier said.

Energy FuelsÂ’s application to construct the mill was deemed complete in December, and officials with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment have begun the review process, which includes public meetings in the area. How quickly the uranium industry is sparked back to life will depend on a variety of factors, from the difficulty and cost of finding and milling it to demand for nuclear power.

There also are legal challenges the industry would have to overcome. Environmental groups have filed suit against Montrose County, alleging its land-use approval decision for the Energy Fuels mill was arbitrary. Other groups are challenging the Energy DepartmentÂ’s leasing program, questioning the potential effects of the mining on endangered species in the Colorado River Basin.

Some environmental groups, however, tend to favor nuclear energy because it doesnÂ’t produce what are deemed greenhouse gases contributing to global warming.

“The bigger issue for uranium is: Will a significant portion of the world choose nuclear power as the clean fuel of choice?” said Dr. Rod Eggert, director of the division of economics and business at Colorado School of Mines. “Right now, there’s a lot of speculation, but exactly how large demand will grow, no one knows.”

The fourth time could be a charm for a nuclear-power plant in the shadow of the Book Cliffs overlooking the Green River valley at the west end of Energy Alley, the 150 miles from Green River, Utah, to Rifle.

Three times since the 1960s, said Aaron Tilton, CEO of Blue Castle Holdings, companies have sought to build nuclear plants near Green River.

“It’s a natural place” for such a plant, Tilton said.

Even though Green River sits within miles of some of the nationÂ’s richest deposits of uranium in the canyon country of Utah and Colorado, itÂ’s not the proximity to fuel that gives impetus to the project.

This time the project could work, Tilton said, because Utah is fast becoming power-starved as its population grows, even while coal and natural gas plants are denied in the permitting process.

“I see some real problems with electricity,” said Mike McCandless, who heads the economic-development effort for Emery County, home to Green River. “Utah is a net importer of electricity now. Rocky Mountain Power has had to cancel every project they’ve had.”

Rocky Mountain Power is part of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., which is owned by billionaire Warren BuffetÂ’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. The inability to win approval for gas-fired plants boosts the prospects of developing nuclear power in Green River, McCandless said.

Green River has an additional advantage in that it sits along one of the national energy corridors established under the auspices of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

Congress ordered officials to designate federal land in 11 western states for energy corridors that would include oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities.

Utah isnÂ’t alone in needing electricity. Arizona, Nevada and California also are hunting for electricity for their populations, Tilton said.

“This is the part of the nation that is growing the fastest,” and that’s driving the search for more energy in places like Green River and the rest of Emery County, McCandless said.

The nuclear plant, which would sit in the shadow of Blue Castle Peak at the base of the Beckwith Plateau west of Green River, would generate 3,000 megawatts of electricity, or enough electricity for about 1 million homes.

Transition, Power Development, which owns the Blue Castle project, has hired a primary contractor, ENERCON, to prepare the companyÂ’s application for an early site permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The project also has an agreement with the Page, Arizona, Electric Utility that sets out the utilityÂ’s potential role as an owner of the project.

Blue Castle will begin a yearlong, data-collection process at the 1,000-acre site early next year as it opens its permitting effort.

Once the Blue Castle backers establish their water rights, more backers will emerge, Tilton said.

Emery County already has two coal-fired power plants, Huntington and Hunter, which together generate about 2,500 megawatts.

The Page, Arizona, utility has declared interest in buying power for its 8,000 customers from the Blue Castle nuclear plant should it be constructed in an industrial park west of Green River.

For McCandless, the nuclear plant is part of a many-pronged effort to make maximum use of the county assets.

McCandless also is working with developers who want to build a 40-acre, solar-voltaic field, and heÂ’s optimistic that on the opposite side of Green River a small refinery will start pumping out fuel from kerogen roasted out of oil shale.

Another company, meanwhile, Conductive Composites Co., is gearing up to manufacture a variety of electrically conductive resins, adhesives, coatings, composites and other systems from Green River.

“Green River is on a tipping point,” said Joni Pace, a local activist working to boost Green River’s economy.

The nuclear plant could be part of the reversal of the townÂ’s fortunes, Pace said.

“I like it,” she said. “I think we need it.”

Amy Wilmath, who works on the town ambulance, runs the Green River Coffee Shop and sits on the planning and zoning commission, said she has some doubts as to the final site.

Wilmath said she worries about the possible air-quality implications for a project upwind from the town, as well as the ability of the town to supply the workforce needed to build and operate a nuclear-power station.

On the other hand, the town needs investment, Wilmath said.

“Any industry in Green River is a much-needed thing,” she said.

Related News

Nord Stream: Norway and Denmark tighten energy infrastructure security after gas pipeline 'attack'

Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage triggers Baltic Sea gas leaks as Norway and Denmark tighten energy infrastructure security, offshore surveillance, and exclusion zones, after drone sightings near platforms and explosions reported by experts.

 

Key Points

An alleged attack causing Baltic gas leaks and heightened energy security measures in Norway and Denmark.

✅ Norway boosts offshore and onshore site security

✅ Denmark enforces 5 nm exclusion zone near leaks

✅ Drones spotted; police probe sabotage and safety breaches

 

Norway and Denmark will increase security and surveillance around their energy infrastructure sites after the alleged sabotage of Russia's Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea, as the EU pursues a plan to dump Russian energy to safeguard supplies. 

Major leaks struck two underwater natural gas pipelines running from Russia to Germany, which has moved to a 200 billion-euro energy shield amid surging prices, with experts reporting that explosions rattled the Baltic Sea beforehand.

Norway -- an oil-rich nation and Europe's biggest supplier of gas -- will strengthen security at its land and offshore installations, even as it weighs curbing electricity exports to avoid shortages, the country's energy minister said.

The Scandinavian country's Petroleum Safety Authority also urged vigilance on Monday after unidentified drones were seen flying near Norway's offshore oil and gas platforms.

"The PSA has received a number of warnings/notifications from operator companies on the Norwegian Continental Shelf concerning the observation of unidentified drones/aircraft close to offshore facilities" the agency said in a statement.

"Cases where drones have infringed the safety zone around facilities are now being investigated by the Norwegian police."

Meanwhile Denmark will increase security across its energy sector after the Nord Stream incident, as wider market strains, including Germany's struggling local utilities, ripple across Europe, a spokesperson for gas transmission operator Energinet told Upstream.

The Danish Maritime Agency has also imposed an exclusion zone for five nautical miles around the leaks, warning ships of a danger they could lose buoyancy, and stating there is a risk of the escaping gas igniting "above the water and in the air," even as Europe weighs emergency electricity measures to limit prices.

Denmark's defence minister said there was no cause for security concerns in the Baltic Sea region.

"Russia has a significant military presence in the Baltic Sea region and we expect them to continue their sabre-rattling," Morten Bodskov said in a statement.

Video taken by a Danish military plane on Tuesday afternoon showed the extent of one of gas pipeline leaks, with the surface of the Baltic bubbling up as gas escapes, highlighting Europe's energy crisis for global audiences:

Meanwhile police in Sweden have opened a criminal investigation into "gross sabotage" of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, and Sweden's crisis management unit was activated to monitor the situation. The unit brings together representatives from different government agencies. 

Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde had a call with her Danish counterpart Jeppe Kofod on Tuesday evening, and the pair also spoke with Norwegian Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt on Wednesday, as the bloc debates gas price cap strategies to address the crisis, with Kofod saying there should be a "clear and unambiguous EU statement about the explosions in the Baltic Sea." 

"Focus now on uncovering exactly what has happened - and why. Any sabotage against European energy infrastructure will be met with a robust and coordinated response," said Kofod. 

 

Related News

View more

Wind and solar make more electricity than nuclear for first time in UK

UK Renewables Surpass Nuclear Milestone as wind farms and solar panels outpace atomic output, cutting greenhouse gas emissions. BEIS data show low-carbon power generation rising while onshore wind subsidies and auction timelines face policy debate.

 

Key Points

It is the quarter when UK wind and solar generated more electricity than nuclear, signaling cleaner, low-carbon growth.

✅ BEIS reports wind and solar at 18.33 TWh vs nuclear 16.69 TWh

✅ Energy sector emissions fell 8% as coal use dropped

✅ Calls grow to reopen onshore wind support via CFD auctions

 

Wind farms and solar panels, with wind leading the power mix during key periods, produced more electricity than the UK’s eight nuclear power stations for the first time at the end of last year, official figures show.

Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions also continued to fall, dropping 3% in 2017, as coal use fell and the use of renewables climbed, though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to later data.

Energy experienced the biggest drop in emissions of any UK sector, of 8%, while pollution from transport and businesses stayed flat.

Energy industry chiefs said the figures showed that the government should rethink its ban on onshore wind subsidies, a move that ministers have hinted could happen soon.

Lawrence Slade, chief executive of the big six lobby group Energy UK, said: “We need to keep up the pace ... by ensuring that the lowest cost renewables are no longer excluded from the market.”

Across the whole year, low-carbon sources of power – wind, solar, biomass and nuclear – provided a record 50.4% of electricity, up from 45.7% in 2016, when wind beat coal for the first time.

But in the fourth quarter of 2017, high wind speeds, new renewables installations and lower nuclear output saw wind and solar becoming the second biggest source of power for the first time.

Wind and solar generated 18.33 terawatt hours (TWh), with nuclear on 16.69TWh, and the UK later set a new record for wind power during 2019, the figures published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show.

But renewables still have a long way to go to catch up with gas, the UK’s top source of electricity at 36.12TWh, which saw its share of generation fall slightly, though at times wind became the main source as capacity expanded.

Greenpeace said the figures showed the government should capitalise on its lead in renewables and “stop wasting time and money propping up nuclear power”.

Horizon Nuclear Power, a subsidiary of the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi, is in talks with Whitehall officials for a financial support package from the government, which it says it needs by midsummer.

By contrast, large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are not eligible for support, after the Conservative government cut subsidies in 2015.

However the energy minister, Claire Perry, recently told House Magazine that “we will have another auction that brings forward wind and solar, we just haven’t yet said when”.

 

Related News

View more

During this Pandemic, Save Money - How To Better Understand Your Electricity Bill

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

 

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

 

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

 

 

Related News

View more

Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero: IEA report

Canada Clean Electricity Expansion is urged by the IEA to meet net-zero targets, scaling non-emitting generation, electrification, EV demand, and grid integration across provinces to decarbonize industry, buildings, and transport while ensuring reliability and affordability.

 

Key Points

An IEA-backed pathway for Canada to scale non-emitting power, electrification, and grid links to meet net-zero goals.

✅ Double or triple clean generation to replace fossil fuels

✅ Integrate provincial grids to decarbonize dependent regions

✅ Manage EV and heating loads with reliability and affordability

 

Canada will need more electricity capacity if it wants to hit its climate targets, and cleaning up Canada's electricity will be critical, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The report offers mainly a rosy picture of Canada's overall federal energy policy. But, the IEA draws attention to Canada's increasing future electricity demands, and ultimately, calls on Canada to leverage its non-emitting energy potential and expand renewable energy to hit its climate targets.  

"Canada's wealth of clean electricity and its innovative spirit can help drive a secure and affordable transformation of its energy system and help realize its ambitious goals," stated Fatih Birol, the IEA executive director, in a news release.

The IEA notes that Canada has one of the cleanest energy grids globally, with 83 per cent of electricity coming from non-emitting sources in 2020. But this reflects nationwide progress in electricity to date; the report warns this is not a reason for Canada to rest on its laurels. More electricity will be needed to displace fossil fuels if Canada wants to hit its 2030 targets, the report states, and "even deeper cuts" will be required to reach net-zero by 2050.

"Perhaps more significantly, however, Canada will need to ensure sufficient new clean generation capacity to meet the sizeable levels of electrification that its net-zero targets imply."

Investing in new coal, oil and gas projects must stop to hit climate goals, global energy agency says
The Liberals have promised to create a 100 percent net-zero-emitting electricity system by 2035, with regulating oil and gas emissions and electric car sales as part of the plan; by then, every new light-duty vehicle sold in Canada will be a zero-emission vehicle. The switch from gas guzzlers to plug-in electric vehicles will create new pressures on Canada's electrical grid, as will any turn away from fossil natural gas for home heating.

To meet these challenges, the IEA warns, Canada would need to double or triple the power generated from non-emitting sources compared to today, a shift whose cost could reach $1.4 trillion according to the Canadian Gas Association. 

"Such a shift will require significant regulatory action," the report states, highlighting the need for climate policy for electricity grids to guide implementation, and that will require the federal government to work closely with provinces and territories that control power generation and distribution.

The report notes that the further integration of territorial and provincial electrical grids could allow fossil fuel-dependent provinces, like Alberta, to decarbonize and electrify their economies.

The report, entitled Canada 2022 Energy Policy Review, offers what it calls an "in-depth" look at the commitments Canada has made to transform its energy policy. Since the IEA conducted its last review in 2015, Canada has committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero by 2050 under an extended national target.

The IEA is well-known for the production of its annual World Energy Outlook. The Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization provides analysis, data, and policy recommendations to promote global energy security and sustainability. Canada is a part of the intergovernmental body, which also conducts peer reviews of its members' energy policy.


Oil and gas emissions rising
Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson responded to the report in the IEA news release.

"This report acknowledges Canada's ambitious efforts and historic investments to develop pathways to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and ensure a transition that aligns with our shared objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius," Wilkinson's statement read.

The report notes that — despite that objective — absolute emissions from Canadian oil and gas extraction went up 26 per cent between 2000 and 2019, largely from increased production.

Minister of Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson responds to a question at a news conference after the federal cabinet was sworn in, in Ottawa, on Oct. 26, 2021. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)
"Canada will need to reconcile future growth in oil sands production with increasingly strict greenhouse gas requirements," the report states.

On the plus side, the IEA found emissions per barrel of oilsands crude have decreased by 20 per cent in the last decade from technical and operational improvements.

The improving carbon efficiency of the oilsands is a "trend that is expected to continue at even higher rates," said Ben Brunnen, vice-president of oilsands, fiscal and economic policy at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

That may become important, the IEA report notes, as energy investors and buyers look for low-carbon assets and more countries adopt net-zero policies.

Further innovation, such as carbon capture and storage, could help to turn things around for Canada's oil patch, the report says. The Liberals have also said they will place a hard cap on oil and gas emissions from production, but that does not include the burning of the fossil fuels. 

In 2021, the IEA released a report that determined to achieve net-zero by 2050, among many steps, investments needed to end in coal mines, oil and gas wells. Thursday's report, however, made no mention of that, which disappointed at least one environmental group.

"A glaring omission was that this assessment says nothing about production. We know that the most important thing we can do is to stop using and producing oil and gas," said Julia Levin, a senior climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

"And yet that was absent from this report, and that really is a glaring omission, which is completely out of line with their [the IEA's] own work."

 

Related News

View more

National Energy Board hears oral traditional evidence over Manitoba-Minnesota transmission line

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

 

Key Points

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

✅ Connects Bipole III to Minnesota to boost exports

✅ NEB hearings include Indigenous rights and treaty issues

✅ Environmental and access impacts debated in regulatory review

 

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

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

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

#google#

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Hearings continue

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

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

 

Related News

View more

Reliability of power winter supply puts Newfoundland 'at mercy of weather': report

Labrador Island Link Reliability faces scrutiny as Nalcor Energy and General Electric address software issues; Liberty Consulting warns of Holyrood risks, winter outages, grid stability concerns, and PUB oversight for Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Key Points

It is the expected dependability of the link this winter, currently uncertain due to GE software and Holyrood risks.

✅ GE software delays may hinder reliable in-service by mid-November.

✅ Holyrood performance issues increase winter outage risk.

✅ PUB directs Hydro to plan contingencies and improve assets.

 

An independent consultant is questioning if the brand new Labrador Island link can be counted on to supply power to Newfoundland this coming winter.

In June, Nalcor Energy confirmed it had successfully sent power from Churchill Falls to the Avalon Peninsula through its more than 1500-kilometre link, but now the Liberty Consulting Group says it doesn't expect the link will be up and running consistently this winter.

"What we have learned supports a conclusion that the Labrador Island Link is unlikely to be reliably in commercial operation at the start of the winter," says the report dated Aug. 30, 2018.

The link relies on software provided by General Electric but Liberty says there are lingering questions about GE's ability to ensure the necessary software will be in place this fall.

"At an August meeting, company representatives did not express confidence in GE's ability to meet an in-service date for the Labrador Island Link of mid-November," says the report.

Liberty also says testing the link for a brief period this spring and fall doesn't demonstrate long-term reliability.

"The link will remain prone to the uncertainties any new major facility faces early in its operating life, especially one involving technology new to the operating company," according to the report.

Holyrood trouble

The report goes on to say island residents should also be worried about the reliability of the troubled Holyrood facility — a facility that's important when demand for energy is high during winter months.

Liberty says "poor performance at the Holyrood thermal generating station increases the risk of outages considerably."

The group's report concludes the deteriorating condition of Holyrood is a major threat to the island's power supply and Liberty says that threat "could produce very severe consequences when the Labrador Island Link is unavailable."

The consultant says questions about the Labrador Island Link's readiness combined with concerns about the reliability of Holyrood may mean power outages, and for vulnerable customers, debates over hydro disconnections policies often intensify during winter.

"This all suggests that, for at least part of this winter, the island interconnected system may be at the mercy of the weather, where severe events can test utilities' storm response efforts further."

The consultant's report also includes five recommendations to the PUB, reflecting the kind of focused nuclear alert investigation follow-up seen elsewhere.

In essence, Liberty is calling for the board to direct Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to make plans for the possibility that the link won't be available this winter. It's also calling on hydro to do more to improve the reliability of its other assets, such as Holyrood, as some operators have even contemplated locking down key staff to maintain operations during crises.

Response to Liberty's report

Nalcor CEO Stan Marshall defended the Crown corporation's winter preparedness in an email statement to CBC.

"The right level of planning and investment has been made for our existing equipment so we can continue to meet all of our customer electricity needs for this coming winter season," he wrote.

Regarding the Labrador Island Link, Marshall called for patience.

"This is new technology for our province and integrating the new transmission assets into our current electricity system is complex work that takes time," he said.

There is also a more detailed response from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which was sent to the province's Public Utiltiies Board.

Hydro says it will keep testing the Labrador Island Link and increasing the megawatts that are wheeled through it. It also says in October it will begin to give the PUB regular reports on the link's anticipated in-service date.

 

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified