Britons could save on soaring bills as ministers plan to end link between gas and electricity prices

Calgary Winter Storm and Extreme Cold delivers heavy snowfall, ECCC warnings, blowing snow, icy roads, and dangerous wind chill across southern Alberta, as a low-pressure system and northerly inflow fuel hazardous travel and frostbite risks.

Key Points

A severe Alberta storm with heavy snow, strong winds, ECCC warnings, dangerous wind chill, and high frostbite risk.

✅ ECCC extends snowfall and winter storm warnings regionwide.

✅ Wind chill -28 to -47; frostbite possible within 5-30 minutes.

✅ AMA rescues surge; non-essential travel strongly discouraged.

Calgary and much of southern Alberta faced a significant winter storm that brought heavy snowfall, strong winds, and dangerously low temperatures. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) issued extended and expanded snowfall and winter storm warnings as persistent precipitation streamed along the southern borders. The combination of a low-pressure system off the West Coast, where a B.C. 'bomb cyclone' had left tens of thousands without power, and a northerly inflow at the surface led to significant snow accumulations in a short period.

The storm resulted in poor driving conditions across much of southern Alberta, with snow-packed and icy roads, as well as limited visibility due to blowing snow. ECCC advised postponing non-essential travel until conditions improved. As of 10 a.m. on January 17, the 511 Alberta map showed poor driving conditions throughout the region, while B.C. electricity demand hit an all-time high amid the cold.

In Calgary, the city recorded four centimeters of snow on January 16, with an additional four centimeters expected on January 17. Temperatures remained far below seasonal averages until the end of the week, and Calgary electricity use tends to surge during such cold snaps according to Enmax, with improvements starting on Sunday.

The extreme cold posed significant risks, with wind chills of -28 to -39 capable of causing frostbite in 10 to 30 minutes, as a Quebec power demand record illustrated during the deep freeze. When wind chills dropped to -40 to -47, frostbite could occur in as little as five to 10 minutes. Residents were advised to watch for signs of frostbite, including color changes on fingers and toes, pain, numbness, tingling sensations, or swelling. Those most at risk included young children, older adults, people with chronic illnesses, individuals working or exercising outdoors, and those without proper shelter.

In response to the severe weather, the Alberta Motor Association (AMA) experienced a surge in calls for roadside assistance. Between January 12 and 14, there were approximately 32,000 calls, with about 22,000 of those requiring rescues between January 12 and 14. The high volume of requests led the AMA to temporarily cease providing wait time updates on their website due to the inability to provide accurate information, while debates over Alberta electricity prices also intensified during the cold.

The storm also had broader implications across Canada. Heavy snow was expected to fall across wide swaths of southern British Columbia and parts of southern Alberta, as BC Hydro's winter payment plan offered billing relief to customers during the stretch. Northern Alberta was under extreme cold warnings, with temperatures expected to dip to -40°C through the rest of the week. Similar extreme cold was forecast for southern Ontario, with wind chill values reaching -30°C.

As the storm progressed, conditions began to improve. The wind warning for central Alberta ended by January 17, though a blowing snow advisory remained in effect for the southeast corner of the province. Northwest winds gusting up to 90 km/h combined with falling snow continued to cause poor visibility in some areas, while California power outages and landslides were reported amid concurrent severe storms along the coast. Conditions were expected to improve by mid-morning.

In the aftermath of the storm, residents were reminded of the importance of preparedness and caution during severe winter weather. Staying informed through official weather advisories, adjusting travel plans, and taking necessary precautions can help mitigate the risks associated with such extreme conditions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California Net Zero Grid Investment will fuel electrification, renewable energy buildout, EV adoption, and grid modernization, boosting utilities, solar, and storage, while policy, IRA incentives, and transmission upgrades drive reliability and long-term rate base growth.

Key Points

Funding to electrify sectors and modernize the grid, scaling renewables, EVs, and storage to meet 2045 net zero goals.

✅ $370B over 22 years to meet 2045 net zero target

✅ Utilities lead gains via grid modernization and rate base growth

✅ EVs, solar, storage scale; IRA credits offset costs

$370 billion: That’s the investment Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro says is needed for California’s power grid to meet the state’s “net zero” goal for CO2 emissions by 2045.

Getting there will require replacing fossil fuels with electricity in transportation, HVAC systems for buildings and industrial processes. Combined with population growth and data demand potentially augmented by artificial intelligence, that adds up to an 82 percent increase in electricity demand over 22 years, or 3 percent annually, and a potential looming shortage if buildout lags.

California’s plans also call for phasing out fossil fuel generation in the state, despite ongoing dependence on fossil power during peaks. And presumably, its last nuclear plant—PG&E Corp’s (PCG) Diablo Canyon—will be eventually be shuttered as well. So getting there also means trebling the state’s renewable energy generation and doubling usage of rooftop solar.

Assuming this investment is made, it’s relatively easy to put together a list of beneficiaries. Electric vehicles hit 20 percent market share in the state in Q2, even as pandemic-era demand shifts complicate load forecasting. And while competition from manufacturers has increased, leading manufacturers like Tesla TSLA -3% Inc (TSLA) can look forward to rising sales for some time—though that’s more than priced in for Elon Musk’s company at 65 times expected next 12 months earnings.

In the past year, California regulators have dialed back net metering through pricing changes affecting compensation, a subsidy previously paying rooftop solar owners premium prices for power sold back to the grid. That’s hit share prices of SunPower Corp (SPWR) and Sunrun Inc (RUN) quite hard, by further undermining business plans yet to demonstrate consistent profitability.

Nonetheless, these companies too can expect robust sales growth, as global prices for solar components drop and Inflation Reduction Act tax credits at least somewhat offset higher interest rates. And the combination of IRA tax credits and U.S. tariff walls will continue to boost sales at solar manufacturers like JinkoSolar Holding (JKS).

The surest, biggest beneficiaries of California’s drive to Net Zero are the utilities, reflecting broader utility trends in grid modernization, with investment increasing earnings and dividends. And as the state’s largest pure electric company, Edison has the clearest path.

Edison is currently requesting California regulators OK recovery over a 30-year period of $2.4 billion in losses related to 2017 wildfires. Assuming a amicable decision by early next year, management can then turn its attention to upgrading the grid. That investment is expected to generate long-term rate base growth of 8 percent at year, fueling 5 to 7 percent annual earnings growth through 2028 with commensurate dividend increases.

That’s a strong value proposition Edison stock, with trades at just 14 times expected next 12 months earnings. The yield of roughly 4.4 percent at current prices was increased 5.4 percent this year and is headed for a similar boost in December.

When California deregulated electricity in 1996, it required utilities with rare exceptions to divest their power generation. As a result, Edison’s growth opportunity is 100 percent upgrading its transmission and distribution grid. And its projects can typically be proposed, sited, permitted and built in less than a year, limiting risk of cost overruns to ensure regulatory approval and strong investment returns.

Edison’s investment plan is also pretty much immune to an unlikely backtracking on Net Zero goals by the state. And the company has a cost argument as well: Dr Pizarro cites U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Transportation data to project inflation-adjusted savings of 40 percent in California’s total customer energy bills from full electrification.

There’s even a reason to believe 40 percent savings will prove conservative. Mainly, gasoline currently accounts for a bit more than half energy expenditures. And after a more than 10-year global oil and gas investment drought, supplies are likely get tighter and prices possibly much higher in coming years.

Of course, those savings will only show up after significant investment is made. At this point, no major utility system in the world runs on 100 percent renewable energy, and California’s blackout politics underscore how reliability concerns shape deployment. And the magnitude of storage technology needed to overcome intermittency in solar and wind generation is not currently available let alone affordable, though both cost and efficiency are advancing.

Taking EVs from 20 to 100 percent of California’s new vehicle sales calls for a similar leap in efficiency and cost, even with generous federal and state subsidy. And while technology to fully electrify buildings and homes is there, economically retrofitting statewide is almost certainly going to be a slog.

At the end of the day, political will is likely to be as important as future technological advance for how much of Pizarro’s $370 billion actually gets spent. And the same will be true across the U.S., with state governments and regulators still by and large calling the shots for how electricity gets generated, transmitted and distributed—as well as who pays for it and how much, even as California’s exported policies influence Western markets.

Ironically, the one state where investors don’t need to worry about renewable energy’s prospects is one of the currently reddest politically. That’s Florida, where NextEra Energy NEE +2.8% (NEE) and other utilities can dramatically cut costs to customers and boost reliability by deploying solar and energy storage.

You won’t hear management asserting it can run the Sunshine State on 100 percent renewable energy, as utilities and regulators do in some of the bluer parts of the country. But by demonstrating the cost and reliability argument for solar deployment, NextEra is also making the case why its stock is America’s highest percentage bet on renewables’ growth—particularly at a time when all things energy are unfortunately becoming increasingly, intensely political.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Tesla Energy Ventures Texas enters the deregulated market as a retail electricity provider, leveraging ERCOT, battery storage, solar, and grid software to enable virtual power plants and customer energy trading with Powerwall and Megapack assets.

Key Points

Tesla Energy Ventures Texas is Tesla's retail power unit selling grid and battery energy and enabling solar exports.

✅ ERCOT retail provider; sells grid and battery-stored power

✅ Uses Powerwall/Megapack; supports virtual power plants

✅ Targets Tesla owners; enables solar export and trading

Last week, Tesla Energy Ventures, a new subsidiary of electric car maker Tesla Inc. (TSLA), filed an application to become a retail electricity provider in the state of Texas. According to reports, the company plans to sell electricity drawn from the grid to customers and from its battery storage products. Its grid transaction software may also enable customers for its solar panels to sell excess electricity back to the smart grid in Texas.1

For those who have been following Tesla's fortunes in the electric car industry, the Palo Alto, California-based company's filing may seem baffling. But the move dovetails with Tesla's overall ambitions for its renewable energy business, as utilities face federal scrutiny of climate goals and electricity rates.

Why Does Tesla Want to Become an Electricity Provider?
The simple answer to that question is that Tesla already manufactures devices that produce and store power. Examples of such devices are its electric cars, which come equipped with lithium ion batteries, and its suite of battery storage products for homes and enterprises. Selling power generated from these devices to consumers or to the grid is a logical next step.

Tesla's move will benefit its operations. The filing states that it plans to build a massive battery storage plant near its manufacturing facility in Austin. The plant will provide the company with a ready and cheap source of power to make its cars.

Tesla's filing should also be analyzed in the context of the Texas grid. The state's electricity market is fully deregulated, unlike regions debating grid privatization approaches, and generated about a quarter of its overall power from wind and solar in 2020.2 The Biden administration's aggressive push toward clean energy is only expected to increase that share.

After a February fiasco in the state grid resulted in a shutdown of renewable energy sources and skyrocketing natural gas prices, Texas committed to boosting the role of battery storage in its grid. The Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state's grid operator, has said it plans to install 3,008 MW of battery storage by the end of 2022, a steep increase from the 225 MW generated at the end of 2020.3 ERCOT's proposed increase in installation represents a massive market for Tesla's battery unit.

Tesla already has considerable experience in this arena. It has built battery storage plants in California and Australia and is building a massive battery storage unit in Houston, according to a June Bloomberg report.4 The unit is expected to service wholesale power producers. Besides this, the company plans to "drum up" business among existing customers for its batteries through an app and a website that will allow them to buy and sell power among themselves, a model also being explored by Octopus Energy in international talks.

Tesla Energy Ventures: A Future Profit Center?
Tesla's foray into becoming a retail electricity provider could boost the top line for its energy services business, even as issues like power theft in India highlight retail market challenges. In its last reported quarter, the company stated that its energy generation and storage business brought in $810 million in revenues.

Analysts have forecast a positive future for its battery storage business. Alex Potter from research firm Piper Sandler wrote last year that battery storage could bring in more than $200 billion per year in revenue and grow up to a third of the company's overall business.5

Immediately after the news was released, Morningstar analyst Travis Miller wrote that Tesla does not represent an immediate threat to other major players in Texas's retail market, where providers face strict notice obligations illustrated when NT Power was penalized for delayed disconnection notices, such as NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) and Vistra Corp. (VST). According to him, the company will initially target its own customers to "complement" its offerings in electric cars, battery, charging, and solar panels.6

Further down the line, however, Tesla's brand name and resources may work to its advantage. "Tesla's brand name recognition gives it an advantage in a hypercompetitive market," Miller wrote, adding that the car company's entry confirmed the firm's view that consumer technology or telecom companies will try to enter retail energy markets, where policy shifts like Ontario rate reductions can shape customer expectations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario NDP Hydro Plan proposes ending time-of-use pricing, buying back Hydro One, lowering electricity rates, curbing rural delivery fees, and restoring public ownership to ease household bills amid debates with PCs and Liberals over costs.

Key Points

A plan to end time-of-use pricing, buy back Hydro One, and cut bills via public ownership and fair delivery fees.

✅ End time-of-use pricing; normal schedules without penalties

✅ Repurchase Hydro One; restore public ownership

✅ Cap rural delivery fees; address oversupply to cut rates

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath says her party’s hydro plan will reduce families’ electricity bills, a theme also seen in Manitoba Hydro debates and the NDP is the only choice to get Hydro One back in public hands.

Howarth outlined the plan Saturday morning outside the home of a young family who say they struggle with their electricity bills — in particular over the extra laundry they now have after the birth of their twin boys.

An NDP government would end time-of-use pricing, which charges higher rates during peak times and lower rates after hours, “so that people aren’t punished for cooking dinner at dinner time,” Horwath said at a later campaign stop in Orillia, “so people can live normal lives and still afford their hydro bill.”

#google#

An NDP government would end time-of-use pricing, which gives lower rates for off-peak usage, Howarth said, separate from a recent subsidized hydro plan during COVID-19. The change would mean families wouldn't be "forced to wait until night when the pricing is lower to do laundry," and wouldn't have to rearrange their lives around chores.

The pricing scheme was supposed to lower prices and help smooth out demand for electricity, especially during peak times, but has failed, she said.

In order to lower hydro bills, Horwath said an NDP government would buy back shares of Hydro One sold off under the Wynne government, which she said has led to high prices and exorbitant executive pay among executives. The NDP plan would also make sure rural families do not pay more in delivery fees than city dwellers, and curb the oversupply of energy to bring prices down.

Critics have said the NDP plan is too costly and will take a long time to implement, and investors see too many unknowns about Hydro One.

"The NDP's plan to buy back Hydro One and continue moving forward with a carbon tax will cost taxpayers billions," said Melissa Lantsman, a spokesperson for PC Leader Doug Ford.

"Only Doug Ford has a plan to reduce hydro rates and put money back in people's pockets. We'll reduce your hydro bill by 12 per cent."

Ford has said he will fire Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt, and has dubbed him the $6-million-dollar man.

Horwath has said both Ford and Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne will end up costing Ontarians more in electricity if one of them is elected come June 7. Their "hydro scheme is the wrong plan," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Nalcor Energy Pandemic Loss underscores Muskrat Falls delays, hydroelectric risks, oil price shocks, and COVID-19 impacts, affecting ratepayers, provincial debt, timelines, and software commissioning for the Churchill River project and Atlantic Canada subsea transmission.

Key Points

A $171M Q1 2020 downturn linked to COVID-19, oil price collapse, and Muskrat Falls delays impacting schedules and costs.

✅ Q1 2020 profit swing: +$92M to -$171M amid oil price crash

✅ Muskrat Falls timeline slips; cost may reach $13.1B

✅ Software, workforce, COVID-19 constraints slow commissioning

Newfoundland and Labrador's Crown energy corporation reported a pandemic-related profit loss from the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, along with further complications to the beleaguered Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

Nalcor Energy recorded a profit loss of $171 million in the first quarter of 2020, down from a $92 million profit in the same period last year, due in part to falling oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The company released its financial statements for 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, and officials discussed the numbers in a livestreamed presentation that detailed the impact of the global health crisis on the company's operations.

The loss in the first quarter was caused by lower profits from electricity sales and a drop in oil prices due to the pandemic and other global events, company officials said.

The novel coronavirus also added to the troubles plaguing the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam on Labrador's Churchill River, amid Quebec-N.L. energy tensions that long predate the pandemic.

Work at the remote site stopped in March over concerns about spreading the virus. Operations have been resuming slowly, with a reduced workforce tackling the remaining jobs.

Officials with Nalcor said it will likely be another year before the megaproject is complete.

CEO Stan Marshall estimates the months of delays could bring the total cost to $13.1 billion including financing, up from the previous estimate of $12.7 billion -- though the total impact of the coronavirus on the project's price tag has yet to be determined.

"If we're going to shut down again, all of that's wrong," Marshall said. "But otherwise, we can just carry on and we'll have a good idea of the productivity level. I'm hoping that by September we'll have a more definitive number here."

The 824 megawatt hydroelectric dam will eventually send power to Newfoundland, and later Nova Scotia, through subsea cables, even as Nova Scotia boosts wind and solar in its energy mix.

It has seen costs essentially double since it was approved in 2012, and faced significant delays even before pandemic-forced shutdowns in North America and around the world this spring.

Cost and schedule overruns were the subject of a sweeping inquiry that held hearings last year, while broader generation choices like biomass use have drawn scrutiny as well.

The commissioner's report faulted previous governments for failing to protect residents by proceeding with the project no matter what, and for placing trust in Nalcor executives who "frequently" concealed information about schedule, cost and related risks.

Some of the latest delays have come from challenges with the development of software required to run the transmission link between Labrador and Newfoundland, where winter reliability issues have been flagged in reports.

The software is still being worked out, Marshall said Tuesday, and the four units at the dam will come online gradually over the next year.

"It's not an all or nothing thing," Marshall said of the final work stages.
Nalcor's financial snapshot follows a bleak fiscal update from the province this month. The Liberal government reported a net debt of $14.2 billion and a deficit of more than $1.1 billion, even as a recent Churchill Falls deal promised new revenues for the province, citing challenges from pandemic-related closures and oil production shutdowns.

Finance Minister Tom Osborne said at the time that help from Ottawa will be necessary to get the province's finances back on track.

Muskrat Falls represents about one-third of the province's debt, and is set to produce more power than the province of about half a million people requires. Anticipated rate increases due to the ballooning costs and questions about Muskrat Falls benefits have posed a significant political challenge for the provincial government.

Ottawa has agreed to work with Newfoundland and Labrador on a rewrite of the project's financial structure, scrapping the format agreed upon in past federal-provincial loan agreements in order to ease the burden on ratepayers, while some argue independent planning would better safeguard ratepayers.

Marshall, a former Fortis CEO who was brought in to lead Nalcor in 2016, has called the project a "boondoggle" and committed to seeing it completed within four years. Though that plan has been disrupted by the pandemic, Marshall said the end is in sight.

"I'm looking forward to a year from now. And I hope to be gone," Marshall said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News