Nevada on track to reach RPS mandate of 50% renewable electricity by 2030: report

Nova Scotia Integrated Resource Plan evaluates NSPI supply options, UARB oversight, Muskrat Falls imports, coal retirements, wind and biomass expansion, transmission upgrades, storage, and least-cost pathways to decarbonize the grid for ratepayers.

Key Points

A 25-year roadmap assessing supply, imports, costs, and emissions to guide least-cost decarbonization for Nova Scotia.

✅ Compares wind, biomass, gas, imports, and storage costs

✅ Addresses coal retirements, emissions caps, and reliability

✅ Recommends transmission upgrades and Muskrat Falls utilization

Maintaining a viable electricity network requires good long-term planning and, as a recent grid operations report notes, ongoing operational improvements. The existing stock of generating assets can become obsolete through aging, changes in fuel prices or environmental considerations. Future changes in demand must be anticipated.

Periodically, an integrated resource plan is created to predict how all this will add up during the ensuing 25 years. That process is currently underway and is led by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and will be submitted for approval to the Utilities and Review Board (UARB).

Coal-fired plants are still the largest single source of electricity in Nova Scotia. They need to be replaced with more environmentally friendly sources when they reach the end of their useful lives. Other sources include wind, hydroelectricity from rivers, biomass, as seen in increased biomass use by NS Power, natural gas and imports from other jurisdictions.

Imports are used sparingly today but will be an important source when the electricity from Muskrat Falls comes on stream. That project has big capacity. It can produce all the power needed in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where Quebec's power ambitions influence regional flows, plus the amount already committed to Nova Scotia, and still have a lot left over.

Some sources of electricity are more valuable than others. The daily amount of power from wind and solar cannot be controlled. Fuel-based sources and hydro can.

Utilities make their profits by providing the capital necessary to build infrastructure. Most of the money is borrowed but a portion, typically 30 per cent, usually comes from NSPI or a sister company. On that they receive a rate of return of nine per cent. Nova Scotia can borrow money today at less than two per cent.

The largest single investment of that type is the $1.577-billion Maritime Link connecting power from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. It continues through to the New Brunswick border to facilitate exports to the United States. NSPI’s sister company, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML), is making nine per cent on $473 million of the cost.

There is little unexploited hydro capacity in Nova Scotia and there will not be any new coal-fired plants. Large-scale solar is not competitive in Nova Scotia’s climate. Nova Scotia’s needs would not accommodate the amount of nuclear capacity needed to be cost-effective, even as New Brunswick explores small reactors in its strategy.

So the candidates for future generating resources are wind, natural gas, biomass (though biomass criticism remains) and imports from other jurisdictions. Tidal is a promising opportunity but is still searching for a commercially viable technology. 

NSPI is commendably transparent about its process (irp.nspower.ca). At this stage there is little indication of the conclusions they are reaching but that will presumably appear in due course.

The mountains of detail might obscure the fact that NSPI is not an unbiased arbiter of choices for the future.

It is reported that they want to prematurely close the Trenton 5 coal plant in 2023-25. It is valued at $88.5 million. If it is closed early, ratepayers will still have to pay off the remaining value even though the plant will be idle. NSPI wants to plan a decommissioning of five of its other seven plants. There is a federal emissions constraint but retiring coal plants earlier than needed will cost ratepayers a lot.

Whenever those plants are closed, there will be a need for new sources of power. NSPI is proposing to plan for new investments in new transmission infrastructure to facilitate imports. Other possibilities would be additional wind farms, consistent with the shift to more wind and solar projects, thermal plants that burn natural gas or biomass, or storage for excess wind power that arrives before it can be used. The investment in storage could be anywhere from $20 million to $200 million.

These will add to the asset burden funded by ratepayers, even as industrial customers seek discounts while still paying for shuttered coal infrastructure.

External sources of new power will not provide NSPI the same opportunity: wind power by independent producers might be less expensive because they are willing to settle for less than nine per cent or because they are more efficient. Buying more power from Muskrat Falls will use transmission infrastructure we are already paying for. If a successful tidal technology is found, it will not be owned by NSPI or a sister company, which are no longer trying to perfect the technology.

This is not to suggest that NSPI would misrepresent the alternatives. But they can tilt the discussion in their favour. How tough will they be negotiating for additional Muskrat Falls power when it hurts their profits? Arguing for premature coal retirement on environmental grounds is fair game but whether the cost should be accepted is a political choice. 

NSPI is in a conflict of interest. We need a different process. An independent body should author the integrated resource plan. They should be fully informed about NSPI’s views.

They should communicate directly with Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat power, with independent wind producers, and with tidal power companies. The UARB cannot do any of these things.

The resulting plan should undergo the same UARB review that NSPI’s version would. This enhances the likelihood that Nova Scotians will get the least-cost alternative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Nuclear Reactor Life Extension focuses on energy security, carbon-free electricity, and safety as ageing reactors face gas shortages, high power prices, and regulatory approvals across the UK and EU amid winter supply risks.

Key Points

EU Nuclear Reactor Life Extension is the policy to keep ageing reactors safely generating affordable, low-carbon power.

✅ Extends reactor operation via inspections and component upgrades

✅ Addresses gas shortages, price volatility, and winter supply risks

✅ Requires national regulator approval and cost-benefit analysis

Shaken by the loss of Russian natural gas since the invasion of Ukraine, European countries are questioning whether they can extend the lives of their ageing nuclear reactors to maintain the supply of affordable, carbon-free electricity needed for net-zero across the bloc — but national regulators, companies and governments disagree on how long the atomic plants can be safely kept running.

Europe avoided large-scale blackouts last winter despite losing its largest supplier of natural gas, and as Germany temporarily extended nuclear operations to bolster stability, but industry is still grappling with high electricity prices and concerns about supply.

Given warnings from the International Energy Agency that the coming winters will be particularly at risk from a global gas shortage, governments have turned their attention to another major energy source — even as some officials argue nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue in the near term — that would exacerbate the problem if it too is disrupted: Europe’s ageing fleet of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear accounts for nearly 10% of energy consumed in the European Union, with transport, industry, heating and cooling traditionally relying on coal, oil and natural gas.

Historically nuclear has provided about a quarter of EU electricity and 15% of British power, even as Germany shut down its last three nuclear plants recently, underscoring diverging national paths.

Taken together, the UK and EU have 109 nuclear reactors running, even as Europe is losing nuclear power in several markets, most of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s and were commissioned to last about 30 years.

That means 95 of those reactors — nearly 90% of the fleet — have passed or are nearing the end of their original lifespan, igniting debates over how long they can safely continue to be granted operating extensions, with some arguing it remains a needed nuclear option for climate goals despite age-related concerns.

Regulations differ across borders, with some countries such as Germany turning its back on nuclear despite an ongoing energy crisis, but life extension discussions are usually a once-a-decade affair involving physical inspections, cost/benefit estimates for replacing major worn-out parts, legislative amendments, and approval from the national nuclear safety authority.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

U.S. Climate Change Donation Survey reveals Americans' willingness to fund sustainability via government incentives, electrification, and renewable energy. Public opinion favors wind, solar, and decarbonization, highlighting policy support post-pandemic amid economic recovery efforts.

Key Points

A 2020 U.S. poll on climate attitudes: donation willingness, renewable support, and views on government incentives.

✅ 70% would donate income; 31% would donate nothing.

✅ 59% prefer government incentives; 47% support taxes, conservation.

✅ 85% land wind, 83% offshore wind, 90% solar support.

A new study of American consumers' attitudes toward climate change finds that more than two-thirds of respondents (70%) indicate their willingness to give or donate a percentage of their personal income to support the fight against climate change and the path to net-zero electricity emissions by mid-century. 

Twenty-eight percent indicated they were willing to provide less than 1% of their income; 33% said they would be willing to contribute 1-5% of their income; 6% said they would give between 6-10% of their income; and 3% indicated they would contribute more than 10% of their income. Just under one-third (31%) of those surveyed indicated they were unwilling to give or donate any percentage of their income to support the fight against climate change.

The U.S. findings are part of a series of surveys commissioned by Nexans in the U.S., UK and France, in order to determine public opinion on climate change and related issues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. study was conducted online by Researchscape from August 20 – 24, 2020. It had 1,013 respondents, ages 18 or older, with the results weighted to be representative of the overall population (variables available upon request).

Nexans, is headquartered in Paris with a major offshore wind cable manufacturing facility in Charleston, S.C. and an industrial cable manufacturing facility in El Dorado, Ark. The company is fully committed to fighting climate change and is helping to make sustainable electrification possible. The survey was developed as part of its celebration of the first Climate Day in Paris which included a roundtable event with world-renowned experts, the release of an unprecedented global study by Roland Berger on the challenges raised by the electrification of the world, the question of whether the global energy transition is on track, and Nexans' own commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030.

Paying the Tab to Address Climate Change

Participants were given the opportunity to choose from seven multiple responses to the question "How should the fight against climate change be paid for?" The majority (59%) replied it should be paid for by "government incentives for both businesses and consumers." It was followed by "federal, state and/or local taxes" and "conservation programs" (tied at 47%); "business investments" (42%), such as carbon-free electricity initiatives, and "consumer-driven purchases" (33%). Just 9% selected none of the above and 2% selected other.

"Through the organization of this Climate Day, Nexans is asserting itself not only as an actor but also a thought leader of the energy transition for a sustainable electrification of the world. This electrification raises a number of challenges and paradoxes that must be overcome. And it will only happen with the direct involvement of the populations concerned. These surveys provide a better understanding of the level of information and disinformation, including climate change denial, in public opinion as well as their level of acceptability of these lifestyle changes," said Christopher Guérin, CEO, Nexans.

Among other findings, 44% are dissatisfied with the job that federal and state governments are doing to address climate change, while utilities like Duke Energy face investor pressure to release climate reports, 35% are somewhat satisfied and 21% are either very satisfied or completed satisfied with government's role.

Americans expressed overwhelmingly favorable views of wind and solar renewable energy proposals, as carbon emissions fall when electricity producers move away from coal. Specifically, 85% stated being in favor of wind turbines on land (15% against), 83% in favor of wind turbines off the coast (17% against) and 90% in support of solar panel farms (10% opposed).

Those surveyed were asked about their current and changing priorities towards climate change as influenced by the coronavirus pandemic and impacts like extreme heat on electricity bills. Thirty-nine percent indicated that climate change was no more and no less a priority due to the current health emergency; just under a third (31%) indicated that climate change is more of a priority while 30% said it was less of a priority.

In similar research conducted by Nexans in the United Kingdom, nearly two thirds (65.8%) of UK respondents said they would be willing to donate part of their salary to fight climate change. Furthermore, nearly a third (29%) of the UK's consumers believe that combating climate change has become more of a priority in light of the coronavirus pandemic. The UK research was conducted online by Savanta from August 21 – 24, 2020. A total of 2210 respondents, aged 16 and above, representative of the UK population took part.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

BC Hydro LNG Load Forecast signals rising electricity demand from LNG Canada, Woodfibre, and Tilbury, aligning Site C dam capacity with BCUC review, hydroelectric supply, and a potential fourth project in feasibility study British Columbia.

Key Points

BC Hydro's projection of LNG-driven power demand, guiding Site C capacity, BCUC review, and grid planning.

✅ Includes LNG Canada, Woodfibre, and Tilbury load requests

✅ Aligns Site C hydroelectric output with industrial electrification

✅ Notes feasibility study for a fourth LNG project

Despite recent project cancellations, such as the Siwash Creek independent power project now in limbo, BC Hydro still expects three LNG projects — and possibly a fourth, which is undergoing a feasibility study — will need power from its controversial and expensive Site C hydroelectric dam.

In a letter sent to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) on Oct. 3, BC Hydro’s chief regulatory officer Fred James said the provincially owned utility’s load forecast includes power demand for three proposed liquefied natural gas projects because they continue to ask the company for power.

The letter and attached report provide some detail on which of the LNG projects proposed in B.C. are more likely to be built, given recent project cancellations.

The documents are also an attempt to explain why BC Hydro continues to forecast a surge in electricity demand in the province, as seen in its first call for power in 15 years driven by electrification, even though massive LNG projects proposed by Malaysia’s state owned oil company Petronas and China’s CNOOC Nexen have been cancelled.

An explanation is needed because B.C.’s new NDP government had promised the BCUC would review the need for the $9-billion Site C dam, which was commissioned to provide power for the province’s nascent LNG industry, amid debates over alternatives like going nuclear among residents. The commission had specifically asked for an explanation of BC Hydro’s electric load forecast as it relates to LNG projects by Wednesday.

The three projects that continue to ask BC Hydro for electricity are Shell Canada Ltd.’s LNG Canada project, the Woodfibre LNG project and a future expansion of FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG storage facility.

None of those projects have officially been sanctioned but “service requests from industrial sector customers, including LNG, are generally included in our industrial load forecast,” the report noted, even as Manitoba Hydro warned about energy-intensive customers in a separate notice.

In a redacted section of the report, BC Hydro also raises the possibility of a fourth LNG project, which is exploring the need for power in B.C.

“BC Hydro is currently undertaking feasibility studies for another large LNG project, which is not currently included in its Current Load Forecast,” one section of the report notes, though the remainder of the section is redacted.

The Site C dam, which has become a source of controversy in B.C. and was an important election issue, is currently under construction and, following two new generating stations recently commissioned, is expected to be in service by 2024, a timeline which had been considered to provide LNG projects with power by the time they are operational.

BC Hydro’s letter to the BCUC refers to media and financial industry reports that indicate global LNG markets will require more supply by 2023.

“While there remains significant uncertainty, global LNG demand will continue to grow and there is opportunity for B.C. LNG,” the report notes.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Russia-Ukraine Energy War disrupts infrastructure, oil, gas, and electricity, triggering supply shocks, price spikes, and inflation. Global markets face volatility, import risks, and cybersecurity threats, underscoring energy security, grid resilience, and diversified supply.

Key Points

It is Russia's strategic targeting of Ukraine's energy system to disrupt supplies, raise prices, and hit global markets.

✅ Attacks weaponize energy to strain Ukraine and allies

✅ Supply shocks risk oil, gas, and electricity price spikes

✅ Urgent need for cybersecurity, grid resilience, diversification

Russia's targeting of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has unleashed an "energy war" that could lead to widespread price increases, supply disruptions, and ripple effects throughout the global energy market, felt across the continent, with warnings of Europe's energy nightmare taking shape.

This highlights the unprecedented scale and severity of the attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. These attacks have disrupted power supplies, prompting increased electricity imports to keep the lights on, hindered oil and gas production, and damaged refineries, impacting Ukraine and the broader global energy system.

Energy as a Weapon

Experts claim that Russia's deliberate attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure represent a strategic escalation, amid energy ceasefire violations alleged by both sides, demonstrating the Kremlin's willingness to weaponize energy as part of its war effort. By crippling Ukraine's energy system, Russia aims to destabilize the country, inflict suffering on civilians, and undermine Western support for Ukraine.

Impacts on Global Oil and Gas Markets

The ongoing attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure could significantly impact global oil and gas markets, leading to supply shortages and dramatic price increases, even as European gas prices briefly returned to pre-war levels earlier this year, underscoring extreme volatility. Ukraine's oil and gas production, while not massive in global terms, is still significant, and its disruption feeds into existing anxieties about global energy supplies already affected by the war.

Ripple Effects Beyond Ukraine

The impacts of the "energy war" won't be limited to Ukraine or its immediate neighbours. Price increases for oil, gas, and electricity are expected worldwide, further fueling inflation and exacerbating the global cost of living crisis.  Additionally, supply disruptions could disproportionately affect developing nations and regions heavily dependent on energy imports, making targeted energy security support to Ukraine and other vulnerable importers vital.

Vulnerability of Energy Infrastructure

The attacks on Ukraine highlight the vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure worldwide, as the country prepares for winter under persistent threats. The potential for other state or non-state actors to use similar tactics raises concerns about security and long-term stability in the global energy sector.

Strengthening Resilience

Experts emphasize the urgent need for global cooperation in strengthening the resilience of energy infrastructure. Investments in cybersecurity, diverse energy sources, and decentralized grids are crucial for mitigating the risks of future attacks, with some arguing that stepping away from fossil fuels would improve US energy security over time. International cooperation will be key in identifying vulnerable areas and providing aid to nations whose infrastructure is under threat.

The Unpredictable Future of Energy

The "energy war" unleashed by Russia has injected a new level of uncertainty into the global energy market. In addition to short-term price fluctuations and supply issues, the conflict could accelerate the long-term transition towards renewable energy sources and reshape how nations approach energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News