Premier warns NDP, Greens that delaying Site C dam could cost $600M


Proposed Site C Dam graphic

Arc Flash Training CSA Z462 - Electrical Safety Essentials

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

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$249
Coupon Price:
$199
Reserve Your Seat Today

Site C Project Delay raises BC Hydro costs as Christy Clark warns $600 million impact; NDP and Greens seek BCUC review of the hydroelectric dam on the Peace River, challenging evictions and construction contracts.

 

Key Points

A potential slowdown of B.C.'s Site C dam, risking $600M overruns, evictions, and schedule delays pending a BCUC review.

✅ Clark warns $600M cost if river diversion slips a year

✅ NDP-Green seek BCUC review; request to pause contracts, evictions

✅ Peace River hydro dam; schedule critical to budget, ratepayers

 

Premier Christy Clark is warning the NDP and Greens that delaying work on the Site C project in northeast British Columbia could cost taxpayers $600 million.

NDP Leader John Horgan wrote to BC Hydro last week asking it to suspend the evictions of two homeowners and urging it not to sign any new contracts on the $8.6-billion hydroelectric dam until a new government has gained the confidence of the legislature.

But Clark says in letters sent to Horgan and Green Leader Andrew Weaver on Tuesday that the evictions are necessary as part of a road and bridge construction project that are needed to divert a river in September 2019.

Any delay could postpone the diversion by a year and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, she says.

“With a project of this size and scale, keeping to a tight schedule is critical to delivering a completed project on time and on budget,” she says. “The requests contained in your letter are not without consequences to the construction schedule and ultimately have financial ramifications to ratepayers.”

The premier has asked Horgan and Weaver to reply by Saturday on whether they still want to put the evictions on hold.

She also asks whether they want the government to issue a “tools down” request to BC Hydro on other decisions that she says are essential to maintaining the budget and construction schedule.

An agreement between the NDP and Green party was signed last week that would allow the New Democrats to form a minority government, ousting Clark's Liberals.

The agreement includes a promise to refer the Site C project to the B.C. Utilities Commission to determine its economic viability.

Some analysts argue that better B.C.-Alberta power integration could improve climate outcomes and market flexibility.

But Clark says the project is likely to progress past the “point of no return” before a review can be completed.

Clark did not define what she meant by “point of no return,” nor did she explain how she reached the $600-million figure. Her press secretary Stephen Smart referred questions to BC Hydro, which did not immediately respond.

During prolonged drought conditions, BC Hydro has had to adapt power generation across the province, affecting planning assumptions.

In a written response to Clark, Weaver says before he can comment on her assertions he requires access to supporting evidence, including signed contracts, the project schedule and potential alternative project timelines.

“Please let me express my disappointment in how your government is choosing to proceed with this project,” he says.

“Your government is turning a significant capital project that potentially poses massive economic risks to British Columbians into a political debate rather than one informed by evidence and supported by independent analysis.”

The dam will be the third on the Peace River, flooding an 83-kilometre stretch of valley, and local First Nations, landowners and farmers have fiercely opposed the project.

Construction began two years ago.

A report written by University of British Columbia researchers in April argued it wasn't too late to press pause on the project and that the electricity produced by Site C won't be fully required for nearly a decade after it's complete.

 

Related News

Related News

Montreal's first STM electric buses roll out

STM Electric Buses Montreal launch a zero-emission pilot with rapid charging stations on the 36 Monk line from Angrignon to Square Victoria, winter-tested for reliability and aligned with STM's 2025 fully electric fleet plan.

 

Key Points

STM's pilot deploys zero-emission buses with charging on the 36 Monk line, aiming for a fully electric fleet by 2025.

✅ 36 Monk route: Angrignon to Square Victoria with rapid charging

✅ Winter-tested performance; 15-25 km range per charge

✅ Quebec-built: motors Boucherville; buses Saint-Eustache

 

The first of three STM electric buses are rolling in Montreal, similar to initiatives with Vancouver electric buses elsewhere in Canada today.

The test batch is part of the city's plan to have a fully electric fleet by 2025, mirroring efforts such as St. Albert's electric buses in Alberta as well.

Over the next few weeks, one bus at a time will be put into circulation along the 36 Monk line, a rollout approach similar to Edmonton's first electric bus efforts in that city, going from Angrignon Metro station to Square Victoria Metro station. 

Rapid charging stations have been set up at both locations, a model seen in TTC's battery-electric rollout to support operations, so that batteries can be charged during the day between routes. The buses are also going to be fully charged at regular charging stations overnight.

Each bus can run from 15 to 25 kilometres on a single charge. The Monk line was chosen in part for its length, around 11 kilometres.

The STM has been testing the electric buses to make sure they can stand up to Montreal's harsh winters, drawing on lessons from peers such as the TTC electric bus fleet in Toronto, and now they are ready to take on passengers.

 

Keeping it local

The motors were designed in Boucherville, and the buses themselves were built in Saint-Eustache.

No timeline has been set for when the STM will be ready to roll out the whole fleet, but Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, who was on hand at Tuesday's unveiling, told reporters he has confidence in the $11.9-million program.

"We start with three. Trust me, there will be more." said Coderre.

 

Related News

View more

How Hedge Funds May Be Undermining the Electric Car Boom

Cobalt Supply Chain for EV Batteries faces shortages as lithium-ion demand surges; Tesla gigafactories, ethical sourcing, Idaho cobalt mining, and DRC risks intensify pricing, logistics, and procurement challenges for manufacturers and investors.

 

Key Points

A network supplying cobalt for lithium-ion cathodes, strained by EV demand, ethical sourcing pressures, and DRC risk.

✅ EV growth outpaces cobalt supply, widening deficits

✅ DRC reliance drives ESG scrutiny and sourcing shifts

✅ Idaho projects and stockpiling reshape U.S. supply

 

A perfect storm is brewing in the 21st Century battery market.

More specifically, it's about what goes into those batteries - and it's not just lithium.

The other element that makes up 35 percent of the lithium-ion batteries mass produced at Tesla's Nevada gigafactory and at a dozen of other behemoths slated to come on line, is cobalt. And it's already in dramatically short supply. A part of the answer to the cobalt deficit is 100 percent American, and this little-known miner is sitting on a prime Idaho cobalt project that is one of only two that looks likely to come online in the U.S. and it's right in Tesla's backyard.

 

High-Energy Batteries Need More Cobalt Than Lithium 

If you've been focusing your investment on lithium supplies lately you've been missing the even bigger story. EV batteries need about 200 grams of refined cobalt per kilowatt of battery capacity. Power walls need more than twice that. Between March 2016 and April 2017, the cost of the cobalt in that mix nearly tripled. But it isn't just the price that's got manufacturers worried. It's the shortage of availability. Keeping gigafactories stocked with enough cobalt to run at capacity is the challenge of the decade.

Tesla, now with a $50-billion market cap, launched a $5-billion battery gigafactory in Nevada in January. By the end of 2017, it will have doubled the entire global battery production capacity. By next year, it will be producing more batteries than the rest of the world combined.

It is estimated that Tesla's gigafactory alone will need anywhere between 7,000 and 17,500 tonnes of refined cobalt every year.

Tesla used to buy its finished battery cells from Panasonic, which in turn got its processed cathode powders from a Japanese company, Sumitomo was processing its own cobalt in the Philippines. However, that facility is already running at capacity and couldn't even begin to handle Tesla's gigafactory demand. In other words, Tesla's supply chain is no longer secure. And that's just Tesla.

The EV market is fifteen times larger than it was five years ago. The market has experienced a comppound annual growth rate of over 72 percent from 2011-2016, with new sources like Alberta's lithium-laced oil fields drawing investment alongside cobalt. This year, analysts expect it to gain another 25-26 percent. Last year, global EV production grew 41 percent, and sales are up more than 60 per cent year to year.

In addition,the Iron Creek project isn't a new exploration property. It has already seen major historic exploratory work, including 30,000 feet of diamond drilling. Iron Creek has historic (non 43-101 compliant) indications of 1.3 million tons grading 0.59 percent of cobalt with encouraging indications of up to 10 million tons. The 'closeology' is also brilliant. It's right next to the only advanced cobalt project in the U.S., which has a resource of 3 million-plus tonnes of cobalt.

As the battery market hits fever pitch and the supply-chain bottlenecks become unbearable, homegrown exploration is the key-first-movers and first investors will be the biggest beneficiaries.

 

A Very Precarious Supply Chain 

Supply is already in deficit, and we're also looking at an anticipated 500 percent increase in demand, making EV battery recycling an increasingly important complement to mining. Analysts at Macquarie Research project deficits of 885 tonnes of this resource next year, 3,205 in 2019 and 5,340 in 2020.

Not only is demand set to wildly outstrip supply very soon, but current supply (50 percent) comes primarily from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Buyers are coming under increasing pressure to look elsewhere for cobalt as the U.S. moves to work with allies to secure EV metals through diversified supply chains. The DRC has a horrendous record when it comes to labor practices and human rights.

Ask Apple Inc.  The tech giant recently announced it would stop buying unethical DRC cobalt for its iPhones - and as such, it has been forced to look for new suppliers.

The perfect storm continues: Some 95 percent of the world's cobalt is produced as a byproduct of copper and nickel mining, where concerns about ethical sourcing have put a spotlight on Canada's role in sustainable nickel practices worldwide. This means that cobalt supply is dependent on copper and nickel mining, and if those commodities are uneconomic to mine, there are no cobalt by-product results.

Not only is US Cobalt one of the first movers on the All-American ethical cobalt scene, but it's also financed to advance its Idaho Cobalt Belt project, and hopes to prove up 10 million tonnes of cobalt resource.

 

The Dream Team Behind Pure American Cobalt 

The CEO of US Cobalt, Wayne Tisdale, is a legend in spotting emerging trends with impeccable timing and has created billions in shareholder value. He's already done it with uranium, gold and oil and gas, and his most recent homerun was in lithium, with Pure Energy. When it launched in 2012, lithium was selling for about $5,000 per tonne. Within 18 months, it had increased 450 percent.

His next bet is on cobalt.

Tisdale and his team at Intrepid Financial have, in recent years, created $2.7 billion in value by building and financing 5 companies in completely different industries:

  • Rainy River (gold) was worth $1.2 billion at its peak
  • Xemplar (uranium) hit $1 billion at its peak
  • Ryland Oil (oil and gas) sold for $114 million
  • Webtech Wireless (tech) was worth $300 million at its peak
  • Pure Energy (lithium) is worth $65 million (and counting)

The bottom line? There is no other commodity on the market right now that we need more.

Just watch what the hedge funds are doing with cobalt because it's unprecedented. The run on physical cobalt started in February in the least expected corner: Major hedge funds started buying up physical cobalt and hoarding it in order to gain exposure, resulting in a major supply shortage for the blue metal. Swiss-based Pala Investments and China's Shanghai Chaos have already hoarded 17 percent of last year's global production. At today's prices that's worth around $280 million. At tomorrow's prices, it will be worth a lot more.

When hedge funds start stockpiling physical cobalt, it sends its traditional buyers into a panic to secure new shipments. Since November, cobalt prices have rallied more than 100 percent, and this is only the beginning. As the cobalt supply problem grows, and EV giants and gigafactories continue to increase demand, a home-grown solution is at hand. As a first principle of investing, where there is a supply problem, there is a massive opportunity for early investors.

 

Related News

View more

EPA moves to rewrite limits for coal power plant wastewater

EPA Wastewater Rule Rollback signals a move to rewrite 2015 Clean Water Act guidelines for coal-fired power plants, easing wastewater rules as heavy metals, mercury, lead, arsenic, and selenium threaten rivers, lakes, public health.

 

Key Points

A planned EPA rewrite of 2015 wastewater limits for coal plants, weakening protections against toxic heavy metals.

✅ Targets 2015 Clean Water Act wastewater guidelines

✅ Affects coal-fired steam electric power plants

✅ Raises risks from mercury, lead, arsenic, selenium

 

The Environmental Protection Agency says it plans to scrap an Obama-era measure limiting water pollution from coal-fired power plants, mirroring moves to replace the Clean Power Plan elsewhere in power-sector policy.

A letter from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt released Monday as part of a legal appeal and amid a broader rewrite of NEPA rules said he will seek to revise the 2015 guidelines mandating increased treatment for wastewater from steam electric power-generating plants.

Acting at the behest of energy groups and electric utilities who opposed the stricter standards, Pruitt first moved in April to delay implementation of the new guidelines. The wastewater flushed from the coal-fired plants into rivers and lakes typically contains traces of such highly toxic heavy metals as lead, arsenic, mercury and selenium.

“After carefully considering your petitions, I have decided that it is appropriate and in the public interest to conduct a rulemaking to potentially revise (the regulations),” Pruitt wrote in the letter addressed to the pro-industry Utility Water Act Group and the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Pruitt’s letter, dated Friday, was filed Monday with the Fifth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which is hearing legal challenges of the wastewater rule. With Pruitt now moving to rewrite the standards, EPA has asked to court to freeze the legal fight.

While that process moves ahead, EPA’s existing guidelines from 1982 remian in effect. Those standards were set when far less was known about the detrimental impacts of even tiny levels of heavy metals on human health and aquatic life.

“Power plants are by far the largest offenders when it comes to dumping deadly toxics into our lakes and rivers,” said Thomas Cmar, a lawyer for the legal advocacy group Earthjustice. “It’s hard to believe that our government officials right now are so beholden to big business that they are willing to let power plants continue to dump lead, mercury, chromium and other dangerous chemicals into our water supply.”

EPA estimates that the 2015 rule, if implemented, would reduce power plant pollution, consistent with new pollution limits proposed for coal and gas plants, by about 1.4 billion pounds a year. Only about 12 per cent of the nation’s steam electric power plants would have to make new investments to meet the higher standards, according to the agency.

Utilities would need to spend about $480 million on new wastewater treatment systems, resulting in about $500 million in estimated public benefits, such as fewer incidents of cancer and childhood developmental defects.

 

Related News

View more

Sparking change: what Tesla's Model 3 could mean for electric utilities

EV Opportunity for Utilities spans EV charging infrastructure, grid modernization, demand response, time-of-use rates, and customer engagement, enabling predictable load growth, flexible charging, and stronger utility branding amid electrification and resilience challenges.

 

Key Points

It is the strategy to leverage EV adoption for load growth, grid flexibility, and branded charging services.

✅ Monetizes EV load via TOU rates, managed charging, and V2G.

✅ Uses rate-based infrastructure to expand equitable charging access.

✅ Enhances resilience and DER integration through smart grid upgrades.

 

Tesla recently announced delivery of the first 30 production units of its Model 3 electric vehicle (EV). EV technology has generated plenty of buzz in the electric utility industry over the past decade and, with last week’s announcement, it would appear that projections of a significant market presence for EVs could give way to rapid growth.

Tesla’s announcement could not have come at a more critical time for utilities, which face unprecedented challenges. For the past 15 years, utilities have been grappling with increasingly frequent “100-year storms,” including hurricanes, snowstorms and windstorms, underscoring the reality that the grid’s aging infrastructure is not fit to withstand increasingly extreme weather, along with other threats, such as cyber attacks.

Coupled with flat or declining load growth, changing regulations, increasing customer demand, and new technology penetration, these challenges have given the electric utility industry good reason to describe its future as “threatened.” These trends, each exacerbating the others, mean essentially that utilities can no longer rely on traditional ways of doing business.

EVs have significant potential to help relieve the industry’s pessimistic outlook. This article will explore what EV growth could mean for utilities and how they can begin establishing critical foundations today to help ensure their ability to exploit this opportunity.

 

The opportunity

At the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) Global Summit 2017, BNEF Advisory Board Chairman Michael Liebreich announced the group’s prediction that electric vehicles will comprise 35-47 percent of new vehicle sales globally by 2040.

U.S. utilities have good reason to be optimistic about this potential new revenue source, as EV-driven demand growth could be substantial according to federal lab analyses. If all 236 million gas-powered cars in the U.S. — average miles driven per year: 12,000 — were replaced with electric vehicles, which travel an average of 100 miles on 34 kWh, they would require 956 billion kWh each year. At a national average cost of $0.12 / kWh, the incremental energy sold by utilities in the U.S. would bring in around $115 billion per year in new revenues. A variety of factors could increase or decrease this number, but it still represents an attractive opportunity for the utility sector.

Capturing this burgeoning market is not simply a matter of increased demand; it will also require utilities to be predictable, adaptable and brandable. Moreover, while the aggregate increase in demand might be only 3-4 percent, demand can come as a flexible and adaptable load through targeted programming. Also, if utilities target the appropriate customer groups, they can brand themselves as the providers of choice for EV charging. The power of stronger branding, in a sector that’s experiencing significant third-party encroachment, could be critical to the ongoing financial health of U.S. utilities.

Many utilities are already keenly aware of the EV opportunity and are speeding down this road (no pun intended) as part of their plans for utility business model reinvention. Following are several questions to be asked when evaluating the EV opportunity.

 

Is the EV opportunity feasible with today’s existing grid?

According to a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the grid is already capable of supporting more than 150 million pure electric vehicles, even as electric cars could challenge state grids in the years ahead, a number equal to at least 63 percent of all gas-powered cars on the road today. This is significant, considering that a single EV plugged into a Level 2 charger can double a home’s peak electricity demand. Assuming all 236 million car owners eventually convert to EVs, utilities will need to increase grid capacity. However, today’s grid already has the capacity to accommodate the most optimistic prediction of 35-47 percent EV penetration by 2040, which is great news.

 

Should the EV opportunity be owned by utilities?

There’s significant ongoing debate among regulators and consumer advocacy groups as to whether utilities should own the EV charging infrastructure, with fights for control over charging reflecting broader market concerns today. Those who are opposed to this believe that the utilities will have an unfair pricing advantage that will inhibit competition. Similarly, if the infrastructure is incorporated into the rate base, those who do not own electric vehicles would be subsidizing the cost for those who do.

If the country is going to meet the future demands of electric cars, the charging infrastructure and power grid will need help, and electric utilities are in the best position to address the problem, as states like California explore EVs for grid stability through utility-led initiatives that can scale. By rate basing the charging infrastructure, utilities can provide charging services to a wider range of customers. This would not favor one economic group over another, which many fear would happen if the private sector were to control the EV charging market.

 

If you build it, will they come?

At this point, we can conclude that growth in EV market penetration is a tremendous opportunity for utilities, one that’s most advantageous to electricity customers if utilities own some, if not all, of the charging infrastructure. The question is, if you build it, will they come — and what are the consequences if they don’t?

With any new technology, there’s always a debate centered around adoption timing — in this case, whether to build the infrastructure ahead of demand for EV or wait for adoption to spike. Either choice could have disastrous consequences if not considered properly. If utilities wait for the adoption to spike, their lack of EV charging infrastructure could stunt the growth of the EV sector and leave an opening for third-party providers. Moreover, waiting too long will inhibit GHG emissions reduction efforts and generally complicate EV technology adoption. On the other hand, building too soon could lead to costly stranded assets. Both problems are rooted in the inability to control adoption timing, and, until recently, utilities didn’t have the means or the savvy to influence adoption directly.

 

How should utilities prepare for the EV?

Beyond the challenges of developing the hardware, partnerships and operational programs to accommodate EV, including leveraging energy storage and mobile chargers for added flexibility, influencing the adoption of the infrastructure will be a large part of the challenge. A compelling solution to this problem is to develop an engaged customer base.

A more engaged customer base will enable utilities to brand themselves as preferred EV infrastructure providers and, similarly, empower them to influence the adoption rate. There are five key factors in any sector that influence innovation adoption:

  1. Relative advantage – how improved an innovation is over the previous generation.

  2. Compatibility – the level of compatibility an innovation has with an individual’s life.

  3. Complexity – if the innovation is to difficult to use, individuals will not likely adopt it.

  4. Trialability – how easily an innovation can be experimented with as it’s being adopted.

  5. Observability – the extent that an innovation is visible to others.

Although much of EV adoption will depend on the private vehicle sector influencing these five factors, there’s a huge opportunity for utilities to control the compatibility, complexity and observability of the EV. According to  “The New Energy Consumer: Unleashing Business Value in a Digital World,” utilities can influence customers’ EV adoption through digital customer engagement. Studies show that digitally engaged customers:

  • have stronger interest and greater likelihood to be early EV adopters;

  • are 16 percent more likely to purchase home-based electric vehicle charging stations and installation services;

  • are 17 percent more likely to sign up for financing for home-based electric vehicle charging stations; and

  • increase the adoption of consumer-focused programs.

These findings suggest that if utilities are going to seize the full potential of the EV opportunity, they must start engaging customers now so they can appropriately influence the timing and branding of EV charging assets.

 

How can utilities engage consumers in preparation?

If utilities establish the groundwork to engage customers effectively, they can reduce the risks of waiting for an adoption spike and of building and investing in the asset too soon. To improve customer engagement, utilities need to:

  1. Change their customer conversations from bills, kWh, and outages, to personalized, interesting topics, communicated at appropriate intervals and via appropriate communication channels, to gain customers’ attention.

  2. Establish their roles as trusted advisors by presenting useful, personalized recommendations that benefit customers. These tips should change dynamically with changing customer behavior, or they risk becoming stagnant and redundant, thereby causing customers to lose interest.

  3. Convert the perception of the utility as a monopolistic, inflexible entity to a desirable, consumer-oriented brand through appropriate EV marketing.

It’s critical to understand that this type of engagement strategy doesn’t even have to provide EV-specific messaging at first. It can start by engaging customers through topics that are relevant and unique, through established or evolving customer-facing programs, such as EE, BDR, TOU, HER.

As lines of communication open up between utility and users, utilities can begin to understand their customers’ energy habits on a more granular level. This intelligence can be used by business analysts to help educate program developers on the optimal EV program timing. For example, as customers become interested in services in which EV owners typically enlist, utilities can target them for EV program marketing. As the number of these customers grows, the window for program development opens, and their levels of interest can be used to inform program and marketing timelines.

While all this may seem like an added nuisance to an EV asset development strategy, there’s significant risk of losing this new asset to third-party providers. This is a much greater burden to utilities than spending the time to properly own the EV opportunity.

 

Related News

View more

Australia electricity market: Plan to avoid threats to electricity supply

National Electricity Market review calls for clear coal-fired closure schedules to safeguard energy security, backing a technology-agnostic clean energy and low emissions target with tradeable certificates to stabilise prices and support a smoother transition.

 

Key Points

A review proposing orderly coal closures and a technology-agnostic clean energy target to protect grid reliability.

✅ Mandates advance notice of coal plant closure schedules

✅ Supports clean energy and low emissions target with certificates

✅ Aims to stabilise prices and ensure system security

 

THE Latrobe Valley’s coal-fired power stations could be forced to give details of planned closures well in advance to help governments avoid major threats to electricity supply, amid an AEMO warning on reduced reserves across the grid.

The much-anticipated review of the national electricity market, to be released on Friday, will outline the need for clear schedules for the closure of coal-fired power stations to avoid rushed decisions on ­energy security.

It is believed the Turnbull government, which has ruled out taxpayer-funded power plants in the current energy debate, will move toward either a clean-energy or a low-emissions target that aims to bolster power security while reducing household bills and emissions.

The system, believed to be also favoured by industry, would likely provide a more stable transition to clean energy by engaging with the just transition concept seen in other markets, because coal-fired power would not be driven out of the market as quickly.

Sources said that would lead to greater investment in the energy sector, a surplus of production and, as seen in Alberta's shift to gas and price cap debate driving market changes, a cut in prices.

It is likely most coal-fired power stations, such as Yallourn and Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley, would see out their “natural lives” under the government’s favoured system, rather than be forced out of business by an EIS.

The new target would be separate from the Renewable Energy Target which have come under fire because of ad hoc federal and state targets.

The Herald Sun has been told the policy would provide tradeable clean-energy certificates for low-emissions generation, such as wind, solar and gas and coal which used carbon capture and storage technology.

Energy retailers and large industrial users would then be ­required to source a mandated amount of certified clean power.

Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has repeatedly said any solution must be “technology agnostic” including gas, renewable energy and coal, amid ongoing debates over whether to save or close nuclear plants such as the Three Mile Island debate in other markets.

Energy Networks Australia’s submission to the review, chaired by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, acknowledged the challenges in identifying potential generation closures, particularly with uncertain and poorly integrated state and national carbon policy settings.

The group said given the likelihood of further closures of coal fired generation units a new mechanism was needed to better manage changes in the generation mix, well in advance of the closure of the plant.

It said the implications for system stability were “too significant” to rely on the past short-term closures, such as Hazelwood, particularly when the amount of power generated could drive energy security to “tipping point”.

 

 

Related News

View more

Deepwater Wind Eyeing Massachusetts’ South Coast for Major Offshore Wind Construction Activity

Revolution Wind Massachusetts will assemble turbine foundations in New Bedford, Fall River, or Somerset, building a local offshore wind supply chain, creating regional jobs, and leveraging pumped storage and an offshore transmission backbone.

 

Key Points

An offshore wind project assembling MA foundations, building a local supply chain, jobs, and peak clean power.

✅ 400 MW offshore wind; local fabrication of 1,500-ton foundations

✅ 300+ direct jobs, 600 indirect; MA crew vessel builds and operations

✅ Expandable offshore transmission; pumped storage for peak power

 

Deepwater Wind will assemble the wind turbine foundations for its Revolution Wind in Massachusetts, and it has identified three South Coast cities – New Bedford, Fall River and Somerset – as possible locations for this major fabrication activity, the company is announcing today.

Deepwater Wind is committed to building a local workforce and supply chain for its 400-megawatt Revolution Wind project, now under review by state and utility officials as Massachusetts advances projects like Vineyard Wind statewide.

“No company is more committed to building a local offshore wind workforce than us,” said Deepwater Wind CEO Jeffrey Grybowski. “We launched America’s offshore wind industry right here in our backyard. We know how to build offshore wind in the U.S. in the right way, and our smart approach will be the most affordable solution for the Commonwealth. This is about building a real industry that lasts.”

#google#

The construction activity will involve welding, assembly, painting, commissioning and related work for the 1,500-ton steel foundations supporting the turbine towers. This foundation-related work will create more than 300 direct jobs for local construction workers during Revolution Wind’s construction period. An additional 600 indirect and induced jobs will support this effort.

In addition, Deepwater Wind is now actively seeking proposals from Massachusetts boat builders for the construction of purpose-built crew vessels for Revolution Wind. Several dozen workers are expected to build the first of these vessels at a local boat-building facility, and another dozen workers will operate this specialty vessel over the life of Revolution Wind. (Deepwater Wind commissioned America’s only offshore wind crew vessel – Atlantic Wind Transfer’s Atlantic Pioneer – to serve the Block Island Wind Farm.)

The company will issue a formal Request for Information to local suppliers in the coming weeks. Deepwater Wind’s additional wind farms serving Massachusetts will require the construction of additional vessels, as will growth along Long Island’s South Shore in the coming years.

These commitments are in addition to Deepwater Wind’s previously-announced plans to use the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal for significant construction and staging operations, and to pay $500,000 per year to the New Bedford Port Authority to use the facility. During construction, the turbine marshaling activity in New Bedford is expected to support approximately 700 direct regional construction jobs.

“Deepwater Wind is building a sustainable industry on the South Coast of Massachusetts,” said Matthew Morrissey, Deepwater Wind Vice President Massachusetts. “With Revolution Wind, we are demonstrating that we can build the industry in Massachusetts while enhancing competition and keeping costs low.”

The Revolution Wind project will be built in Deepwater Wind’s federal lease site, under the BOEM lease process, southwest of Martha’s Vineyard. If approved, local construction work on Revolution Wind would begin in 2020, with the project in operations in 2023. Survey work is already underway at Deepwater Wind’s offshore lease area.

Revolution Wind will deliver “baseload” power, allowing a utility-scale renewable energy project for the first time to replace the retiring fossil fuel-fired power plants closing across the region, a transition echoed by Vineyard Wind’s first power milestones elsewhere.

Revolution Wind will be capable of delivering clean energy to Massachusetts utilities when it’s needed most, during peak hours of demand on the regional electric grid. A partnership with FirstLight Power, using its Northfield Mountain hydroelectric pumped storage in Northfield, Massachusetts, makes this peak power offering possible. This is the largest pairing of hydroelectric pumped storage and offshore wind in the world.

The Revolution Wind offshore wind farm will also be paired with a first-of-its-kind offshore transmission backbone. Deepwater Wind is partnering with National Grid Ventures on an expandable offshore transmission network that supports not just Revolution Wind, but also future offshore wind farms, as New York’s biggest offshore wind farm moves forward across the region, even if they’re built by our competitors.

This cooperation is in the best interest of Massachusetts electric customers because it will reduce the amount of electrical infrastructure needed to support the state’s 1,600 MW offshore wind goal. Instead of each subsequent developer building its own standalone cable network, other offshore wind companies could use expandable infrastructure already installed for Revolution Wind, reducing project costs and saving ratepayers money.

 

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

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

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

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

Live Online & In-person Group Training

Advantages To Instructor-Led Training – Instructor-Led Course, Customized Training, Multiple Locations, Economical, CEU Credits, Course Discounts.

Request For Quotation

Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person instruction, our electrical training courses can be tailored to meet your company's specific requirements and delivered to your employees in one location or at various locations.