Canadian nuclear projects bring economic benefits

Ontario Global Adjustment Charge faces constitutional scrutiny as a regulatory charge vs tax; Court of Appeal revives case over electricity pricing, feed-in tariff contracts, IESO policy, and hydro rate impacts on consumers and industry.

Key Points

A provincial electricity fee funding generator contracts, now central to a court fight over tax versus regulatory charge.

✅ Funds gap between market price and contracted generator rates

✅ At issue: regulatory charge vs tax under constitutional law

✅ Linked to feed-in tariff, IESO policy, and hydro rate hikes

Ontario’s court of appeal has decided that a constitutional challenge of a steep provincial electricity charge should get its day in court, overturning a lower-court judgment that had dismissed the legal bid.

Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. launched the challenge in 2017, saying Ontario’s so-called global adjustment charge was unconstitutional because it is a tax — not a valid regulatory charge — that was not passed by the legislature.

The global adjustment funds the difference between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts to power generators. It is “the component that covers the cost of building new electricity infrastructure in the province, maintaining existing resources, as well as providing conservation and demand management programs,” the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator says.

However, the global adjustment now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household electricity bill, and its costs have ballooned, as regulators elsewhere consider a proposed 14% rate hike in Nova Scotia.

Ontario’s auditor general said in 2015 that global adjustment fees had increased from $650 million in 2006 to more than $7 billion in 2014. She added that consumers would pay $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032, after having already paid $37 billion from 2006 to 2014.

National Steel Car, which manufactures steel rail cars and faces high electricity rates that hurt Ontario factories, said its global adjustment costs went from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, according to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision released on Wednesday.

The company claimed the global adjustment was a tax because one of its components funds electricity procurement contracts under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which National Steel Car called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity,” the decision said.

Ontario’s auditor general said the FIT program “paid excessive prices to renewable energy generators.” The program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place.

National Steel Car claimed the FIT program “was actually designed to accomplish social goals unrelated to the generation of electricity,” such as helping rural and indigenous communities, and was therefore a tax trying to help with policy goals.

“The appellant submits that the Policy Goals can be achieved by Ontario in several ways, just not through the electricity pricing formula,” the decision said.

National Steel Car also argued the global adjustment violated a provincial law that requires the government to hold a referendum for new taxes.

“The appellant’s principal claim is that the Global Adjustment was a ‘colourable attempt to disguise a tax as a regulatory charge with the purpose of funding the costs of the Policy Goals,’” the decision said. “The appellant pressed this argument before the motion judge and before this court. The motion judge did not directly or adequately address it.”

The Ontario government applied to have the challenge thrown out for having “no reasonable cause of action,” and a Superior Court judge did so in 2018, saying the global adjustment is not a tax.

National Steel Car appealed the decision, and the decision published Wednesday allowed the appeal, set aside the lower-court judgment, and will send the case back to Superior Court, where it could get a full hearing.

“The appellant’s claim is sufficiently plausible on the evidentiary record it put forward that the applications should not have been dismissed on a pleadings motion before the development of a full record,” wrote Justice Peter D. Lauwers. “It is not plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the Global Adjustment, and particularly the challenged component, is properly characterized as a valid regulatory charge and not as an impermissible tax.”

Jerome Morse of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers, said the Ontario government would now have 60 days to decide whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“What the court has basically said is, ‘this is a plausible argument, here are the reasons why it’s plausible, there was no answer to this,’” Morse told the Financial Post.

Ontario and the IESO had supported the lower-court decision, but there has been a change in government since the challenge was first launched, with Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford replacing the Liberals and Kathleen Wynne in power. The Liberals had launched a plan aimed at addressing hydro costs before losing in a 2018 election, the main thrust of which had been to refinance global adjustment costs.

Wednesday’s decision states that “Ontario’s counsel advised the court that the current Ontario government ‘does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement policy (since-repealed).’

“The government’s view is that: ‘The solution does not lie with the courts, but instead in the political arena with political actors,’” it adds.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in an email that they are reviewing the decision but “as this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment.” 

Ontario had also requested to stay the matter so a regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, could weigh in, while the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate case.

“However, Ontario only sought this relief from the motion judge in the alternative, and given the motion judge’s ultimate decision, she did not rule on the stay,” Thursday’s decision said. “It would be premature for this court to rule on the issue, although it seems incongruous for Ontario to argue that the Superior Court is the convenient forum in which to seek to dismiss the applications as meritless, but that it is not the convenient forum for assessing the merits of the applications.”

National Steel Car’s challenge bears a resemblance to the constitutional challenges launched by Ontario and other provinces over the federal government’s carbon tax, but Justice Lauwers wrote “that the federal legislative scheme under consideration in those cases is distinctly different from the legislation at issue in this appeal.”

“Nothing in those decisions impacts this appeal,” the judge added.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Estonia energy prices 2021 show sharp electricity hikes versus the EU average, mixed natural gas trends, kWh tariffs on Nord Pool spiking, and VAT, taxes, and support measures shaping household bills.

Key Points

EU-high electricity growth, early gas dip, then Nord Pool spikes; taxes, VAT, and subsidies shaped energy bills.

✅ Electricity up 7% on year; EU average 2.8% in H1 2021.

✅ Gas fell 1% in H1; later spiked with global market.

✅ VAT, taxes, excise and aid impacted household costs.

Estonia saw one of the highest rates in growth of electricity prices in the first half of 2021, compared with the same period in key trends in 2020 across Europe. These figures were posted before the more recent, record level of electricity and natural gas prices; the latter actually dropped slightly in Estonia in the first half of the year.

While electricity prices rose 7 percent on year in the first half of 2021 in Estonia, the average for the EU as a whole, where energy prices drove inflation across the bloc, stood at 2.8 percent over the same period, BNS reports.

Hungary (€10 per 100 Kwh) and Bulgaria (€10.20 per 100 Kwh) saw the lowest electricity prices EU-wide, while at €31.9 per KWH, Germany's power prices posted the most expensive rate, while Denmark, Belgium and Ireland also had high prices, in excess of €25 per Kwh.

Slovenia saw the highest electricity price rise, at 15 percent, and even the United States' electricity prices saw their steepest rise in decades during the same era, while Estonia was in third place, joint with Romania at 7 percent as noted, and behind Poland (8 percent).

Lithuania, on the other hand, experienced the third highest electricity price fall over the first half of 2021, compared with the same period in 2020, at 6 percent, behind only Cyprus (7 percent) and the Netherlands (10 percent, largely due to a tax cut).

Urmas Reinsalu: VAT on electricity, gas and heating needs to be lowered
The EU average price of electricity was €21.9 percent per Kwh, with taxes and excise accounting for 39 percent of this, even as prices in Spain surged across the day-ahead market.

Estonia has also seen severe electricity price rises in the second half of the year so far, with records set and then promptly broken several times earlier in October, while an Irish electricity provider raised prices amid similar pressures, and a support package for low income households rolled out for the winter season (October to March next year). The price on the Nord Pool market as of €95.01 per Kwh; a day earlier it had stood at €66.21 per Kwh, while on October 19 the price was €140.68 per Kwh.

Gas prices
Natural gas prices to household, meanwhile, dropped in Estonia over the same period, at a sharper rate (1 percent) than the EU average (0.5 percent), according to Eurostat.

Gas prices across the EU were lowest in Lithuania (€2.8 per 100 Kwh) and highest in the Netherlands (€9.6 per KWH), while the highest growth was seen in Denmark (19 percent), in the first half of 2021.

Natural gas prices dropped in 20 member states, however, with the largest drop again coming in Lithuania (23 percent).

The average price of natural gas EU-side in the first half of 2021 was €6.4, and taxes and excise duties accounted on average for 36 percent of the total.

The second half of the year has seen steep gas price rises in Estonia, largely the result of increases on the world market, though European gas benchmarks later fell to pre-Ukraine war levels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Minnesota Electric Cooperatives are driving grid innovation with smart meters, time-of-use pricing, demand response, and energy storage, including iron-air batteries, to manage peak loads, integrate wind and solar, and cut costs for rural members.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities piloting load management, meters, and storage to integrate wind and solar, cutting peak demand.

✅ Time-of-use pricing pilots lower bills and shift peak load.

✅ Iron-air battery tests add multi-day, low-cost energy storage.

✅ Smart meters enable demand response across rural co-ops.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have quietly emerged as laboratories for clean grid innovation, outpacing investor-owned utilities on smart meter installations, time-based pricing pilots, and experimental battery storage solutions.

“Co-ops have innovation in their DNA,” said David Ranallo, a spokesperson for Great River Energy, a generation and distribution cooperative that supplies power to 28 member utilities — making it one of the state’s largest co-op players.

Minnesota farmers helped pioneer the electric co-op model more than a century ago, similar to modern community-generated green electricity initiatives, pooling resources to build power lines, transformers and other equipment to deliver power to rural parts of the state. Today, 44 member-owned electric co-ops serve about 1.7 million rural and suburban customers and supply almost a quarter of the state’s electricity.

Co-op utilities have by many measures lagged on clean energy. Many still rely on electricity from coal-fired power plants. They’ve used political clout with rural lawmakers to oppose new pollution regulations and climate legislation, and some have tried to levy steep fees on customers who install solar panels.

Where they are emerging as innovators is with new models and technology for managing electric grid loads — from load-shifting water heaters to a giant experimental battery made of iron. The programs are saving customers money by delaying the need for expensive new infrastructure, and also showing ways to unlock more value from cheap but variable wind and solar power.

Unlike investor-owned utilities, “we have no incentive to invest in new generation,” said Darrick Moe, executive director of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. Curbing peak energy demand has a direct financial benefit for members.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have launched dozens of programs, such as the South Metro solar project, in recent years aimed at reducing energy use and peak loads, in particular. They include:

Cost calculations are the primary driver for electric cooperatives’ recent experimentation, and a lighter regulatory structure and evolving electricity market reforms have allowed them to act more quickly than for-profit utilities.

“Co-ops and [municipal utilities] can act a lot more nimbly compared to investor-owned utilities … which have to go through years of proceedings and discussions about cost-recovery,” said Gabe Chan, a University of Minnesota associate professor who has researched electric co-ops extensively. Often, approval from a local board is all that’s required to launch a venture.

Great River Energy’s programs, which are rebranded and sold through member co-ops, yielded more than 101 million kilowatt-hours of savings last year — enough to power 9,500 homes for a year.

Beyond lowering costs for participants and customers at large, the energy-saving and behavior-changing programs sometimes end up being cited as case studies by larger utilities considering similar offerings. Advocates supporting a proposal by the city of Minneapolis and CenterPoint Energy to allow residents to pay for energy efficiency improvements on their utility bills through distributed energy rebates used several examples from cooperatives.

Despite the pace of innovation on load management, electric cooperatives have been relatively slow to transition from coal-fired power. More than half of Great River Energy’s electricity came from coal last year, and Dairyland Power, another major power wholesaler for Minnesota co-ops, generated 70% of its energy from coal. Meanwhile, Xcel Energy, the state’s largest investor-owned utility, has already reduced coal to about 20% of its energy mix.

The transition to cleaner power for some co-ops has been slowed by long-term contracts with power suppliers that have locked them into dirty power. Others have also been stalled by management or boards that have been resistant to change. John Farrell, director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Energy Democracy program, said generalizing co-ops is difficult. 

“We’ve seen some co-ops that have got 75-year contracts for coal, that are invested in coal mines and using their newsletter to deny climate change,” he said. “Then you see a lot of them doing really amazing things like creating energy storage systems … and load balancing [programs], because they are unique and locally managed and can have that freedom to experiment without having to go through a regulatory process.”

Great River Energy, for its part, says it intends to reach 54% renewable generation by 2025, while some communities, like Frisco, Colorado, are targeting 100% clean electricity by specific dates. Its members recently voted to sell North Dakota’s largest coal plant, but the arrangement involves members continuing to buy power from the new owners for another decade.

The cooperative’s path to clean power could become clearer if its experimental iron-air battery project is successful. The project, the first of its kind in the country, is expected to be completed by 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Vietnam Offshore Wind Regulations expand coastal zones to six nautical miles, remove water depth limits, streamline permits, and boost investment, grid integration, and renewable energy capacity across deeper offshore wind resource areas.

Key Points

Policies extend sites to six nautical miles, scrap depth limits, and speed permits to scale offshore wind.

✅ Extends offshore zones to six nautical miles from shore

✅ Removes water depth limits to access stronger winds

✅ Streamlines permits, aiding grid integration and finance

Vietnam has recently redefined its regulations for offshore wind power projects, marking a significant development in the country's renewable energy ambitions. This strategic shift aims to streamline regulatory processes, enhance project feasibility, and accelerate the deployment of offshore wind energy in Vietnam's coastal regions, amid a trillion-dollar offshore wind market globally.

Regulatory Changes

The Vietnamese government has adjusted offshore wind power regulations by extending the allowable distance from shore for wind farms to six nautical miles (approximately 11 kilometers), a move that aligns with evolving global practices such as Canada's offshore wind plan announced recently by regulators. This expansion from previous limits aims to unlock new areas for development and maximize the utilization of Vietnam's vast offshore wind potential.

Scrapping Depth Restrictions

In addition to extending offshore boundaries, Vietnam has removed restrictions on water depth for offshore wind projects. This revision allows developers to explore deeper waters, where wind resources may be more abundant, thereby diversifying project opportunities and optimizing energy generation capacity.

Strategic Implications

The redefined regulations are expected to stimulate investment in Vietnam's renewable energy sector, attracting domestic and international stakeholders keen on capitalizing on the country's favorable wind resources, with World Bank support for wind underscoring the growing pipeline in developing markets. The move aligns with Vietnam's broader energy diversification goals and commitment to reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

Economic Opportunities

The expansion of offshore wind development zones creates economic opportunities across the value chain, from project planning and construction to operation and maintenance. The influx of investments is anticipated to spur job creation, technology transfer, and infrastructure development in coastal communities, as industry groups like Marine Renewables Canada shift toward offshore wind specialization.

Environmental and Energy Security Benefits

Harnessing offshore wind power contributes to Vietnam's efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. By integrating renewable energy sources into its energy mix, Vietnam enhances energy security, as seen in the UK offshore wind expansion, reduces dependency on imported fuels, and promotes sustainable economic growth.

Challenges and Considerations

Despite the promising outlook, offshore wind projects face challenges such as technical complexities, environmental impact assessments, and grid integration, as well as exposure to policy risk exemplified by U.S. opposition to offshore wind debates.

Future Outlook

Looking ahead, Vietnam's redefined offshore wind regulations position the country as a key player in the global renewable energy transition, a trend reinforced by progress in offshore wind in Europe elsewhere. Continued policy support, investment facilitation, and technological innovation will be critical in unlocking the full potential of offshore wind power and achieving Vietnam's renewable energy targets.

Conclusion

Vietnam's revision of offshore wind power regulations reflects a proactive approach to advancing renewable energy development and fostering a conducive investment environment. By expanding development zones and eliminating depth restrictions, Vietnam sets the stage for accelerated growth in offshore wind capacity, contributing to both economic prosperity and environmental stewardship. As stakeholders seize opportunities in this evolving landscape, collaboration and innovation will drive Vietnam towards a sustainable energy future powered by offshore wind.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

China Power Rationing disrupts the solar supply chain as coal shortages, price controls, and dual-control emissions policy curb electricity, squeezing polysilicon, aluminum, and module production and raising equipment costs amid surging post-Covid industrial demand.

Key Points

China's electricity curbs from coal shortages, price caps, and emissions targets disrupt solar output and materials.

✅ Polysilicon and aluminum output cut by power rationing

✅ Coal price spikes and power price caps squeeze generators

✅ Dual-control emissions policy triggers provincial curbs

The solar manufacturing supply chain is among the industries being affected by a combination of soaring power demand, coal shortages, and carbon emission reduction measures which have seen widespread power cuts in China.

In Yunnan province, in southwest China, producers of the silicon metal which feeds polysilicon have been operating at 10% of the output they achieved in August. They are expected to continue to do so for the rest of the year as provincial authorities try to control electricity demand with a measure that is also affecting the phosphorus industry.

Fellow solar supply chain members from the aluminum industry in Guangxi province, in the south, have been forced to operate just two days per week, alongside peers in the concrete, steel, lime, and ceramics segments. Manufacturers in neighboring Guangdong have access to normal power supplies only on Fridays and Saturdays with electricity rationed to a 15% grid security load for the rest of the time.

pv magazine USA reported that a Tier 1 solar module manufacturer warned customers in an email that energy shortages in China have forced it to reduce or stop production at its Chinese manufacturing sites. The company warned the event will also affect output from its downstream cell and module production facilities in Southeast Asia.

The memo said that in order to recover from the effects of the “potential Force Majeure event,” it may delay or stop equipment delivery or seek to renegotiate contracts to pass through higher prices.

Raw material sourcing
With reports of drastic power shortages emerging from China in recent days, the country has actually been experiencing problems since late June, and similar pressures have seen India ration coal supplies this year, but rationing is not unusual during the peak summer hours.

What has changed this time is that the outages have continued and prompted rationing measures across 19 of the nation’s provinces for the rest of the year. The problems have been caused by a combination of rising post-Covid electricity demand at a time when the politically-motivated ban on imports of Australian coal has tightened supply; and the manner in which Beijing controls power prices, with the situation further exacerbated by carbon emissions reduction policy.

Demand
Electricity demand from industry, underscoring China’s electricity appetite, was 13.5 percentage points higher in the first eight months of the year than in the same period of 2020, at 3,585 TWh. That reflected a 13.8% year-on-year rise in total consumption, following earlier power demand drops when coronavirus shuttered plants, to 5.47 PWh, according to data from state energy industry trade body the China Electricity Council.

Figures produced by the China General Administration of Customs tell the same story: a rebound driven by the global recovery from the pandemic, as global power demand surges above pre-pandemic levels, with China recording import and export trade worth RMB2.48 trillion ($385 billion) in January-to-August. That was up 23.7% on the same period of last year and 22.8% higher than in the first eight months of 2019.

With Beijing having enforced an unofficial ban on imports of Australian coal for the last year or so – as the result of an ongoing diplomatic spat with Australia – rising demand for coal (which provided around 73% of Chinese electricity in the first half of the year) has further raised prices for the fossil fuel.

The problem for Chinese coal-fired power generators is that Beijing maintains strict controls on the price of electricity. As a result, input costs cannot be passed on to consumers. The mismatch between a liberalized coal market and centrally controlled end-user prices is illustrated by the current situation in Guangdong. There, a coal price of RMB1,560 per ton ($242) has pushed the cost of coal-fired electricity up to RMB0.472 per kilowatt-hour ($0.073). With coal power companies facing an electricity price ceiling of around RMB0.463/kWh ($0.071), generators are losing around RMB0.12 for every kilowatt-hour they generate. In that situation, rationing electricity supplies is an obvious remedy.

The crisis has been worsened by the introduction of China’s “dual control” energy policy, which aims to help meet President Xi Jinping’s climate change pledge of hitting peak carbon emissions this decade and a net zero economy by 2060, and to reduce coal power production over time. Dual control refers to attempts to wind down greenhouse gas emissions at both a national level and in more local areas, such as provinces and cities.

Red status
With the finer details of the carbon reduction policy yet to be ironed out, government departments and provincial and city authorities have started to set their own emission-reduction targets. In mid-August, state planning body the China National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) published a table of the energy control situation across the nation. With nine provinces marked red for their energy consumption, and a further 10 highlighted as yellow, officials received another motivation to introduce power rationing.

China’s solar industry is being impacted by coal shortages for electric power generation. In this 2014 photo, a thermal generating plant’s cooling towers loom over a street in Henan Province.
Image: flickr/V.T. Polywoda

The current approach of rolling blackouts seems unlikely to be a sustainable solution, as surging electricity demand strains power systems worldwide, given the damage it could inflict on industry and the resentment it would cause in parts of the nation already preparing for winter.

The choice facing China’s policymakers is whether to ramp up coal supplies to force prices down by using decommissioned domestic supplies and halting the ban on Australian imports, or to raise electricity prices to prompt generators to get the lights back on. While the drawbacks of raising household electricity bills seem obvious, the first approach of using more coal could endanger the nation’s climate change commitments on the even of the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, in November. Sources close to the NDRC have suggested the electricity price may be set to rise soon.

GDP
What is clear is the effect the energy crisis is having on the Chinese economy and on the solar supply chain. Leading up to a  national day holiday in China, the coal price in northern China rose to around RMB2,000 per ton ($310), three times higher than at the beginning of the year.

Investment bank China International Capital Corp. blamed the dual control emission reduction policy for the electricity shortages. It predicted a 0.1-0.15 percentage point impact on economic growth in the last quarter of 2021.  Morgan Stanley has put that figure at 1% in the current quarter, if industrial output restrictions continue. And Japan’s Nomura Securities revised down its annual forecast on Chinese growth from 8.2% to 7.7%. It now expects GDP gains in the third and fourth quarters to cool from 5.1% to 4.7%, and from 4.4% to 3%, respectively.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News