Nova Scotia looks to small wind projects

OPG Credit Rating affirmed by DBRS at A (low) issuer and unsecured debt, R-1 (low) CP, Stable trends, backed by a supportive regulatory regime, strong leverage metrics, and provincial support; monitor Darlington Refurbishment costs.

Key Points

It is DBRS's confirmation of OPG at A (low) issuer and unsecured, R-1 (low) CP, with Stable outlooks.

✅ Stable trends; strong cash flow-to-debt and capital ratios

✅ Provincial financing via OEFC; Fair Hydro Trust ring-fenced

✅ Darlington Refurbishment on budget; cost overruns remain risk

DBRS Limited (DBRS) confirmed the Issuer Rating and the Unsecured Debt rating of Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG or the Company) at A (low) and the Commercial Paper (CP) rating at R-1 (low), amid sector developments such as Hydro One leadership efforts to repair government relations and measures like staff lockdowns at critical sites.

All trends are Stable. The ratings of OPG continue to be supported by (1) the reasonable regulatory regime in place for the Company's regulated generation facilities, including stable pricing signals for large users, (2) strong cash flow-to-debt and debt-to-capital ratios and (3) continuing financial support from its shareholder, the Province of Ontario (the Province; rated AA (low) with a Stable trend by DBRS). The Province, through its agent, the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (rated AA (low) with a Stable trend by DBRS), provides most of OPG's financing (approximately 43% of consolidated debt). The Company's remaining debt includes project financing (31%), including projects such as a battery energy storage system proposed near Woodstock, non-recourse debt issued by Fair Hydro Trust (Senior Notes rated AAA (sf), Under Review with Negative Implications by DBRS; 11%), CP (2%) and Senior Notes issued under the Medium Term Note Program (12%).

In March 2019, the Province introduced 'Bill 87, Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019' which includes winding down the Fair Hydro Plan, and later introduced electricity relief to mitigate customer bills during the COVID-19 pandemic. OPG will remain as the Financial Services Manager for the outstanding Fair Hydro Trust debt, which will become obligations of the Province. DBRS does not expect this development to have a material impact on the Company as (1) the Fair Hydro Trust debt will continue to be bankruptcy-remote and ring-fenced from OPG (all debt is non-recourse to the Company) and (2) the credit rating on the Company's investment in the Subordinated Notes (rated AA (sf), Under Review with Negative Implications by DBRS) will likely remain investment grade while the Junior Subordinated Notes (rated A (sf), Under Review with Developing Implications by DBRS) will not necessarily be negatively affected by this change (see the DBRS press release, 'DBRS Maintains Fair Hydro Trust, Series 2018-1 and Series 2018-2 Notes Under Review,' dated March 26, 2019, for more details).

OPG's key credit metrics improved in 2018, following the approval of its 2017-2021 rates application by the Ontario Energy Board in December 2017, alongside the Province's energy-efficiency programs that shape demand. The Company's profitability strengthened significantly, with corporate return on equity (ROE) of 7.8% (adjusted for a $205 million gain on sale of property; 5.1% in 2017) closer to the regulatory allowed ROE of 8.78%. However, DBRS continues to view a positive rating action as unlikely in the short term because of the ongoing large capital expenditures program, including the $12.8 billion Darlington Refurbishment project, amid ongoing oversight following the nuclear alert investigation in Ontario. However, a downgrade could occur should there be significant cost overruns with the Darlington Refurbishment project that result in stranded costs. DBRS notes that the Darlington Refurbishment project is currently on budget and on schedule.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Renewables' Impact on US Wholesale Electricity Prices is clear: DOE analysis shows wind and solar, capacity gains, and natural gas lowering rates, shifting daily patterns, and triggering occasional negative pricing in PJM and ERCOT.

Key Points

DOE data show wind and solar lower wholesale prices, reshape price curves, and cause negative pricing in markets.

✅ Natural gas price declines remain the largest driver of cheaper power

✅ Wind and solar shift seasonal and time-of-day price patterns

✅ Negative wholesale prices appear near high wind and solar output

One of the arguments that's consistently been raised against doing anything about climate change is that it will be expensive. On the more extreme end of the spectrum, there have been dire warnings about plunging standards of living due to skyrocketing electricity prices. The plunging cost of renewables like solar cheaper than gas has largely silenced these warnings, but a new report from the Department of Energy suggests that, even earlier, renewables were actually lowering the price of electricity in the United States.

Plunging prices
The report focuses on wholesale electricity prices in the US. Note that these are distinct from the prices consumers actually pay, which includes taxes, fees, payments to support the grid that delivers the electricity, and so on. It's entirely possible for wholesale electricity prices to drop even as consumers end up paying more, and market reforms determine how those changes are passed through. That said, large changes in the wholesale price should ultimately be passed on to consumers to one degree or another.

The Department of Energy analysis focuses on the decade between 2008 and 2017, and it includes an overall analysis of the US market, as well as large individual grids like PJM and ERCOT and, finally, local prices. The decade saw a couple of important trends: low natural gas prices that fostered a rapid expansion of gas-fired generators and the rapid expansion of renewable generation that occurred concurrently with a tremendous drop in price of wind and solar power.

Much of the electricity generated by renewables in this time period would be more expensive than that generated by wind and solar installed today. Not only have prices for the hardware dropped, but the hardware has improved in ways that provide higher capacity factors, meaning that they generate a greater percentage of the maximum capacity. (These changes include things like larger blades on wind turbines and tracking systems for solar panels.) At the same time, operating wind and solar is essentially free once they're installed, so they can always offer a lower price than competing fossil fuel plants.

With those caveats laid out, what does the analysis show? Almost all of the factors influencing the wholesale electricity price considered in this analysis are essentially neutral. Only three factors have pushed the prices higher: the retirement of some plants, the rising price of coal, and prices put on carbon, which only affect some of the regional grids.

In contrast, the drop in the price of natural gas has had a very large effect on the wholesale power price. Depending on the regional grid, it's driven a drop of anywhere from $7 to $53 per megawatt-hour. It's far and away the largest influence on prices over the past decade.

Regional variation and negative prices
But renewables have had an influence as well. That influence has ranged from roughly neutral to a cost reduction of $2.2 per MWh in California, largely driven by solar. While the impact of renewables was relatively minor, it is the second-largest influence after natural gas prices, and the data shows that wind and solar are reducing prices rather than increasing them.

The reports note that renewables are influencing wholesale prices in other ways, however. The growth of wind and solar caused the pattern of seasonal price changes to shift in areas of high wind and solar, as seen with solar reshaping prices in Northern Europe as daylight hours and wind patterns shift with the seasons. Similarly, renewables have a time-of-day effect for similar reasons, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today, which also influences the daily timing price changes, something that's not an issue with fossil fuel power.

A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.
Enlarge / A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.

US DOE
One striking feature of areas where renewable power is prevalent is that there are occasional cases in which an oversupply of renewable energy produces negative electricity prices in the wholesale market. (In the least-surprising statement in the report, it concludes that "negative prices in high-wind and high-solar regions occurred most frequently in hours with high wind and solar output.") In most areas, these negative prices are rare enough that they don't have a significant influence on the wholesale price.

That's not true everywhere, however. Areas on the Great Plains see fairly frequent negative prices, and they're growing in prevalence in areas like California, the Southwest, and the northern areas of New York and New England, while negative prices in France have been observed in similar conditions. In these areas, negative wholesale prices near solar plants have dropped the overall price by 3%. Near wind plants, that figure is 6%.

None of this is meant to indicate that there are no scenarios where expanded renewable energy could eventually cause wholesale prices to rise. At sufficient levels, the need for storage, backup plants, and grid management could potentially offset their low costs, a dynamic sometimes referred to as clean energy's dirty secret by analysts. But it's clear we have not yet reached that point. And if the prices of renewables continue to drop, then that point could potentially recede fast enough not to matter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ofgem Renewables Obligations drive supplier payments for renewables fees, feed-in tariffs, and renewable generation, with non-payment risking supply licences amid the price cap and volatile wholesale prices across the UK energy market.

Key Points

Mandatory payments by suppliers funding renewables via feed-in tariffs; non-payment can trigger supply licence revoking.

✅ Covers Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariff scheme compliance.

✅ Non-payment can lead to Ofgem action and licence loss.

✅ Affected by price cap and wholesale price volatility.

Seven small British energy suppliers owe a total of 34 million pounds ($43.74 million) in renewables fees, amid a renewables backlog that has stalled projects, and could face losing their supply licences if they cannot pay, energy regulator Ofgem reports.

Under Britain’s energy market rules, suppliers of energy must meet so-called renewables obligations and feed-in tariffs, including households' ability to sell solar power back to energy firms, which are imposed on them by the government to help fund renewable power generation.

Several small energy companies have gone bust over the past two years, a trend echoed by findings from a global utility study on renewable priorities, as they struggled to pay the renewables fees and as their profits were affected by a price cap on the most commonly used tariffs and fluctuating wholesale prices, even as a 10 GW contract brings new renewable capacity onto the UK grid.

Ofgem has called on the companies to make necessary payments by Oct. 31, as moves to offer community-generated power to all UK customers progress.

“If they do not pay Ofgem could start the process of revoking their licences to supply energy,” it said in a statement, as offshore wind power continues to scale nationwide.

The seven suppliers are, amid debates over clean energy impacts, Co-Operative Energy Limited; Flow Energy Limited; MA Energy Limited; Nabuh Energy Limited; Robin Hood Energy Limited; Symbio Energy Limited and Tonik Energy Limited. ($1 = 0.7773 pounds)

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Iceland Bitcoin Mining Energy Shortage highlights surging cryptocurrency and blockchain data center electricity demand, as hydroelectric and geothermal power strain to cool servers, stabilize grid, and meet rapid mining farm growth amid Arctic-friendly conditions.

Key Points

Crypto mining data centers in Iceland are outpacing renewable power, straining the grid and exceeding residential electricity demand.

✅ Hydroelectric and geothermal capacity nearing allocation limits

✅ Cooling-friendly climate draws energy-hungry mining farms

✅ Grid planning and regulation lag rapid data center growth

The value of bitcoin may have stumbled in recent months, but in Iceland it has known only one direction so far: upward. The stunning success of cryptocurrencies around the globe has had a more unexpected repercussion on the island of 340,000 people: It could soon result in an energy shortage in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

As Iceland has become one of the world's prime locations for energy-hungry cryptocurrency servers — something analysts describe as a 21st-century gold-rush equivalent — the industry’s electricity demands have skyrocketed, too. For the first time, they now exceed Icelanders’ own private energy consumption, and energy producers fear that they won’t be able to keep up with rising demand if Iceland continues to attract new companies bidding on the success of cryptocurrencies, a concern echoed by policy moves like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Companies have flooded Iceland with requests to open new data centers to “mine” cryptocurrencies in recent months, even as concerns mount that the country may have to slow down investments amid an increasingly stretched electricity generation capacity, a dynamic seen in BC Hydro's suspension of new crypto connections in Canada.

“There was a lot of talk about data centers in Iceland about five years ago, but it was a slow start,” Johann Snorri Sigurbergsson, a spokesman for Icelandic energy producer HS Orka, told The Washington Post. “But six months ago, interest suddenly began to spike. And over the last three months, we have received about one call per day from foreign companies interested in setting up projects here.”

“If all these projects are realized, we won’t have enough energy for it,” Sigurbergsson said.

Every cryptocurrency in the world relies on a “blockchain” platform, which is needed to trade with digital currencies. Tracking and verifying a transaction on such a platform is like solving a puzzle because networks are often decentralized, and there is no single authority in charge of monitoring payments. As a result, a transaction involves an immense number of mathematical calculations, which in turn occupy vast computer server capacity. And that requires a lot of electricity, as analyses of bitcoin's energy use indicate worldwide.

The bitcoin rush may have come as a surprise to locals in sleepy Icelandic towns that are suddenly bustling with cryptocurrency technicians, but there’s a simple explanation. “The economics of bitcoin mining mean that most miners need access to reliable and very cheap power on the order of 2 or 3 cents per kilowatt hour. As a result, a lot are located near sources of hydro power, where it’s cheap,” Sam Hartnett, an associate at the nonprofit energy research and consulting group Rocky Mountain Institute, told the Washington Post.

Top financial regulators briefed a Senate panel on Feb. 6 about their work with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, and the risks to potential investors. (Reuters)

Located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and famous for its hot springs and mighty rivers, Iceland produces about 80 percent of its energy in hydroelectric power stations, compared with about 6 percent in the United States, and innovations such as underwater kites illustrate novel ways to harness marine energy. That and the cold climate make it a perfect location for new data-mining centers filled with servers in danger of overheating.

Those conditions have attracted scores of foreign companies to the remote location, including Germany's Genesis Mining, which moved to Iceland about three years ago. More have followed suit since then or are in the process of moving. 

While some analysts are already sensing a possible new revenue source for the country that is so far mostly known abroad as a tourist haven and low-budget airline hub, others are more concerned by a phenomenon that has so far mostly alarmed analysts because of its possible financial unsustainability, alongside issues such as clean energy's dirty secret that complicate the picture. Some predictions have concluded that cryptocurrency computer operations may account for “all of the world’s energy by 2020” or may already account for the equivalent of Denmark's energy needs. Those predictions are probably too alarmist, though. 

Most analysts agree that the real energy-consumption figure is likely smaller, and several experts recently told the Washington Post that bitcoin — currently the world's biggest cryptocurrency — used no more than 0.14 percent of the world’s generated electricity, as of last December. Even though global consumption may not be as significant as some have claimed, it still presents a worrisome drain for a tiny country such as Iceland, where consumption suddenly began to spike with almost no warning — and continues to grow fast.

Some networks are considering or have already pushed through changes to their protocols, designed to reduce energy use. But implementing such changes for the leading currency, bitcoin, won't be as easy because it is inherently decentralized. The companies that provide the vast amounts of computing power needed for these transactions earn a small share, comparable to a processing fee or a reward.

They are the source of the Icelandic bitcoin miners’ income — a revenue source that many Icelanders are still not quite sure what to make of, especially if the lights start flickering.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Energy Price Guarantee Cost forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest an £89bn bill, tied to wholesale gas prices, OBR projections, and fiscal policy, to shield households amid the cost of living crisis.

Key Points

It is the projected government spend to cap household bills, driven by wholesale gas prices and OBR market forecasts.

✅ Base case: £89bn over two years, per Cornwall Insight

✅ Range: £72bn to £140bn, volatile wholesale gas costs

✅ Excludes 6-month business support estimated at £22bn-£48bn

Liz Truss’s intervention to freeze energy prices for households for two years is expected to cost the government £89bn, according to the first major costing of the policy by the sector’s leading consultancy.

The analysis from Cornwall Insight, seen exclusively by the Guardian, shows the prime minister’s plan to tackle the cost of living crisis could cost as much as £140bn in a worst-case scenario.

Truss announced in early September that the average annual bill for a typical household would be capped at £2,500 to protect consumers from the intensifying cost of living crisis amid high winter energy costs and a scheduled 80% rise in the cap to £3,549.

The ultimate cost of the policy is uncertain as it is highly dependent on the wholesale cost of gas, including UK natural gas prices which have soared since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put a squeeze on already-volatile international markets. Ballpark projections had put the cost anywhere from £100bn to £150bn.

The Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to give its forecast for the bill when it provides its independent assessment of Kwasi Kwarteng’s medium-term fiscal plan, which the chancellor said on Tuesday would still happen on 23 November despite previous reports that it would be brought forward.

Cornwall Insight analysed projections of wholesale market moves to cost the intervention. In its base case scenario, analysts expect the policy to cost £89bn. That assumes the cost of supporting each household would be just over £1,000 in the first year, and about £2,000 in the second year.

The study’s authors said the wholesale price of gas would be influenced by energy demand, the severity of weather, “geo-political uncertainty” and prices for liquified natural gas as Europe seeks to refill storage facilities, which countries have rushed to fill up this winter but which could be relatively empty by next spring.

In the best-case outcome, the policy would cost £72bn, with some projections pointing to a 16% decrease in energy bills in April for households, while the “extreme high” outlook would see the government shell out £140bn to protect 29m UK households.

Gas prices are expected to push even higher if the Kremlin decides to completely cut off Russian gas exports into Europe.

Cornwall Insight’s projection does not include a separate six-month initiative to cap costs for companies, charities and public sector organisations, which is forecast to cost £22bn to £48bn.

The consultancy’s chief executive, Gareth Miller, said the £70bn range in its forecasts reflected “a febrile wholesale market continuing to be beset by geopolitical instability, sensitivity to demand, weather and infrastructure resilience”.

He said: “Fortune befriends the bold, but it also favours the prepared. The large uncertainties around commodity markets over the next two years means that the government could get lucky with costs coming out at the low end of the range, but the opposite could also be true.

“In each case, the government may find itself passengers to circumstances outside its control, having made policy that is a hostage to surprises, events and volatile factors. That’s a difficult position to be in.”

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The government has faced criticism, as some British MPs urge tighter limits on prices, that the policy is effectively a “blank cheque” and is not targeted at the most vulnerable in society.

Concerns over how Truss and Kwarteng intend to fund a series of measures, including the price guarantee, have spooked financial markets.

The EU, which has outlined possible gas price cap strategies in recent proposals, said last week it planned to cap the revenues of low-carbon electricity generators at €180 a megawatt hour, which is less than half current market prices. Truss has so far resisted calls to extend a levy on North Sea oil and gas operators to electricity generators, who have benefited from a link between gas and electricity prices in Britain.

Truss hopes to strike voluntary long-term deals with generators including Centrica and EDF, alongside the government’s Energy Security Bill measures, to bring down wholesale prices.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the government has threatened companies with legislation to cap their revenues if voluntary deals cannot be agreed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UAE Nuclear Power Plant launches the Barakah facility, delivering clean electricity to the Middle East under IAEA safeguards amid Gulf tensions, proliferation risks, and debates over renewables, natural gas, grid resilience, and energy security.

Key Points

The UAE Nuclear Power Plant, Barakah, is a civilian facility expected to supply 25% of electricity under IAEA oversight.

✅ Barakah reactors target 25% of national electricity.

✅ Operates under IAEA oversight, no enrichment per US 123 deal.

✅ Raises regional security, proliferation, and environmental concerns.

The United Arab Emirates became the first Arab country to open a nuclear power plant on Saturday, following a crucial step in Abu Dhabi earlier in the project, raising concerns about the long-term consequences of introducing more nuclear programs to the Middle East.

Two other countries in the region — Israel and Iran — already have nuclear capabilities. Israel has an unacknowledged nuclear weapons arsenal and Iran has a controversial uranium enrichment program that it insists is solely for peaceful purposes.

The U.A.E., a tiny nation that has become a regional heavyweight and international business center, said it built the plant to decrease its reliance on the oil that has powered and enriched the country and its Gulf neighbors for decades. It said that once its four units were all running, the South Korean-designed plant would provide a quarter of the country’s electricity, with Unit 1 reaching 100% power as a milestone toward commercial operations.

Seeking to quiet fears that it was trying to build muscle to use against its regional rivals, it has insisted that it intends to use its nuclear program only for energy purposes.

But with Iran in a standoff with Western powers over its nuclear program, Israel in the neighborhood and tensions high among Gulf countries, some analysts view the new plant — and any that may follow — as a security and environmental headache. Other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq, are also starting or planning nuclear energy programs.

The Middle East is already riven with enmities that pit Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. against Iran, Qatar and Iran’s regional proxies. One of those proxies, the Yemen-based Houthi rebel group, claimed an attack on the Barakah plant when it was under construction in 2017.

And Iran is widely believed to be behind a series of attacks on Saudi oil facilities and oil tankers passing through the Gulf over the last year.

“The UAE’s investment in these four nuclear reactors risks further destabilizing the volatile Gulf region, damaging the environment and raising the possibility of nuclear proliferation,” Paul Dorfman, a researcher at University College London’s Energy Institute, wrote in an op-ed in March.

Noting that the U.A.E. had other energy options, including “some of the best solar energy resources in the world,” he added that “the nature of Emirate interest in nuclear may lie hidden in plain sight — nuclear weapon proliferation.”
But the U.A.E. has said it considered natural gas and renewable energy sources before dismissing them in favor of nuclear energy because they would not produce enough for its needs.

Offering evidence that its intentions are peaceful, it points to its collaborations with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has reviewed the Barakah project, and the United States, with which it signed a nuclear energy cooperation agreement in 2009 that allows it to receive nuclear materials and technical assistance from the United States while barring it from uranium enrichment and other possible bomb-development activities.

That has not persuaded Qatar, which last year lodged a complaint with the international nuclear watchdog group over the Barakah plant, calling it “a serious threat to the stability of the region and its environment.”

The U.A.E.’s oil exports account for about a quarter of its total gross domestic product. Despite its gusher of oil, it has imported increasing amounts of natural gas in recent years in part to power its energy-intensive desalination plants.

“We proudly witness the start of Barakah nuclear power plant operations, in alignment with the highest international safety standards,” Mohammed bin Zayed, the U.A.E.’s de facto ruler, tweeted on Saturday.

The new nuclear facility, which is in the Gharbiya region on the coast, close to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is the first of several prospective Middle East nuclear plants, even as Europe reduces nuclear capacity elsewhere. Egypt plans to build a power plant with four nuclear reactors.

Saudi Arabia is also building a civilian nuclear reactor while pursuing a nuclear cooperation deal with the United States, and globally, China's nuclear program remains on a steady development track, though the Trump administration has said it would sign such an agreement only if it includes safeguards against weapons development.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News