UK's Energy Transition Stalled by Supply Delays

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Renewable Energy Market is accelerating as wind and solar prices fall, corporate PPAs expand, and a deregulated, energy-only system, AESO outlooks, and TIER policy drive investment across the province.

Key Points

An open, energy-only Alberta market where wind and solar growth is driven by corporate PPAs, AESO outlooks, and TIER.

✅ Energy-only, deregulated grid enables private investment

✅ Corporate PPAs lower costs and hedge power price risk

✅ AESO forecasts and TIER policy support renewables

By Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald

A few things are abundantly clear about the state of renewable energy in Alberta today.

First, the demise of Alberta’s Renewable Electricity Program (REP) under the UCP government isn’t going to see new projects come to a screeching halt.

In fact, new developments are already going ahead.

And industry experts believe private-sector companies that increasingly want to purchase wind or solar power are going to become a driving force behind even more projects in Alberta.

BluEarth Renewables CEO Grant Arnold, who spoke Wednesday at the Canadian Wind Energy Association conference, pointed out the sector is poised to keep building in the province, even with the end of the REP program that helped kick-start projects and triggered low power prices.

“The fundamentals here are, I think, quite fantastic — strong resource, which leads to really competitive wind prices . . . it’s now the cheapest form of new energy in the province,” he told the audience.

“Alberta is in a fundamentally good place to grow the wind power market.”

Unlike other provinces, Alberta has an open, deregulated marketplace, which create opportunities for private-sector investment and renewable power developers as well.

The recent decision by the Kenney government to stick with the energy-only market, instead of shifting to a capacity market, is seen as positive for Alberta's energy future by renewable electricity developers.

There is also increasing interest from corporations to buy wind and solar power from generators — a trend that has taken off in the United States with players such as Google, General Motors and Amazon — and that push is now emerging in Canada.

“It’s been really important in the U.S. for unlocking a lot of renewable energy development,” said Sara Hastings-Simon, founding director of the Business Renewable Centre Canada, which seeks to help corporate buyers source renewable energy directly from project developers.

“You have some companies where . . . it’s what their investors and customers are demanding. I think we will see in Alberta customers who see this as a good way to meet their carbon compliance requirements.

“And the third motivation to do it is you can get the power at a good price.”

Just last month, Perimeter Solar signed an agreement with TC Energy to supply the Calgary-based firm with 74 megawatts from its solar project near Claresholm.

More deals in the industry are being discussed, and it’s expected this shift will drive other projects forward.

There is increasing interest from corporations to buy solar and wind energy directly from generators.

“The single-biggest change has been the price of wind and solar,” Arnold said in an interview.

“Alberta looks really, really bright right now because we have an open market. All other provinces, for regulatory reasons, we can’t have this (deal) . . . between a generator and a corporate buyer of power. So Alberta has a great advantage there.”

These forces are emerging as the renewable energy industry has seen dramatic change in recent years in Alberta, with costs dropping and an array of wind and solar developments moving ahead, even as solar expansion faces challenges in the province.

The former NDP government had an aggressive target to see green energy sources make up 30 per cent of all electricity generation by 2030.

Last week, the Alberta Electric System Operator put out its long-term outlook, with its base-case scenario projecting moderate demand growth for power over the next two decades. However, the expected load growth — expanding by an average of 0.9 per cent annually until 2039 — is only half the rate seen in the past 20 years.

Natural gas will become the main generation source in the province as coal-fired power (now comprising more than one-third of generation) is phased out.

Renewable projects initiated under the former NDP government’s REP program will come online in the near term, while “additional unsubsidized renewable generation is expected to develop through competitive market mechanisms and support from corporate power purchase agreements,” the report states.

AESO forecasts installed generation capacity for renewables will almost double to about 19 per cent by 2030, with wind and solar increasing to 21 per cent by 2039.

Another key policy issue for the sector will likely come within the next few weeks when the provincial government introduces details of its new Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction program (TIER).

The initiative will require large industrial emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a benchmark level, pay into the technology fund, or buy offsets or credits. The carbon price is expected to be around $20 to $30 a tonne, and the system will kick in on Jan. 1, 2020.

Industry players point out the decision to stick with Alberta’s energy-only market along with the details surrounding TIER, and a focus by government on reducing red tape, should all help the sector attract investment.

“It is pretty clear there is a path forward for renewables here in the province,” said Evan Wilson, regional director with the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

All of these factors are propelling the wind and solar sector forward in the province, at the same time the oil and gas sector faces challenges to grow.

But it doesn’t have to be an either/or choice for the province moving forward. We’re going to need many forms of energy in the coming decades, and Alberta is an energy powerhouse, with potential to develop more wind and solar, as well as oil and natural gas resources.

“What we see sometimes is the politics and discussion around renewables or oil becomes a deliberate attempt to polarize people,” Arnold added.

“What we are trying to show, in working in Alberta on renewable projects, is it doesn’t have to be polarizing. There are a lot of solutions.

“The combination of solutions is part of what we need to talk about.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Inventoried Energy Program pays ISO-NE generators for fuel security to boost winter reliability, with FERC approval, covering fossil, nuclear, hydropower, and batteries, complementing capacity markets to enhance grid resilience during severe cold snaps.

Key Points

ISO-NE program paying generators to hold fuel or energy reserves for emergencies, boosting winter reliability.

✅ FERC-approved stopgap for 2023 and 2024 winter seasons

✅ Pays for on-site fuel or stored energy during cold-trigger events

✅ Open to fossil, nuclear, hydro, batteries; limited gas participation

Electricity ratepayers in New England will pay tens of millions of dollars to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants later this decade under a program that proponents say is needed to keep the lights on during severe winters but which critics call a subsidy with little benefit to consumers or the grid, even as Connecticut is pushing a market overhaul across the region.

Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said ISO-New England, which runs the six-state power grid, can create what it calls the Inventoried Energy Program or IEP. This basically will pay certain power plants to stockpile of fuel for use in emergencies during two upcoming winters as longer-term solutions are developed.

The federal commission called it a reasonable short-term solution to avoid brownouts which doesn’t favor any given technology.

Not all agree, however, including FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, who wrote a fiery dissent to the other three commissioners.

“The program will hand out tens of millions of dollars to nuclear, coal and hydropower generators without any indication that those payments will cause the slightest change in those generators’ behavior,” Glick wrote. “Handing out money for nothing is a windfall, not a just and reasonable rate.”

The program is the latest reaction by ISO-NE to the winter of 2013-14 when New England almost saw brownouts because of a shortage of natural gas to create electricity during a pair of week-long deep freezes.

ISO-New England says the situation is more critical now because of the possible retirement of the gas-fired Mystic Generating Station in Massachusetts. As with closed nuclear plants such as Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, power plant owners say lower electricity prices, partly due to cheap renewables and partly to stagnant demand, means they can’t be profitable just by selling power.

Programs like the IEP are meant to subsidize such plants – “incentivize” is the industry term – even though some argue there is no need to subsidize nuclear in deregulated markets so they’ll stay open if they are needed.

The IEP approved last week will be applied to the winters of 2023 and 2024, after a different subsidy program expires. It sets prices, despite warnings about rushing pricing changes from industry groups, for stocking certain amounts of fuel and payments during any “trigger” event, defined as a day when the average of high and low temperatures at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut is no more than 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

These payments will be made on top of a complex system of grid auctions used to decide how much various plants get paid for generating electricity at which times.

ISO-NE estimates the new program will cost between $102 million and $148 million each winter, depending on weather and market conditions.

It says the payments are open to plants that burn oil, coal, nuclear fuel, wood chips or trash; utility-scale battery storage facilities; and hydropower dams “that store water in a pond or reservoir.” Natural gas plants can participate if they guarantee to have fuel available, but that seems less likely because of winter heating contracts.

A major complaint and groups that filed petitions opposing the project is that ISO-NE presented little supporting evidence of how prices, amount and overall cost were determined. ISO-NE argued that there wasn’t time for such analysis before the Mystic shutdown, and FERC agreed.

“The proposal is a step in the right direction … while ISO-NE finishes developing a long-term market solution,” the commission said in its ruling.

The program is the latest example of complexities facing the nation’s electricity system evolves in the face of solar and wind power, which produce electricity so cheaply that they can render traditional power uneconomic but which can’t always produce power on demand, prompting discussions of Texas grid improvements among policymakers. Another major factor is climate change, which has increased the pressure to support renewable alternatives to plants that burn fossil fuels, as well as stagnant electricity demand caused by increased efficiency.

Opponents, including many environmental groups, say electricity utilities and regulators are too quick to prop up existing systems, as the 145-mile Maine transmission line debate shows, built when electricity was sent one way from a few big plants to many customers. They argue that to combat climate change as well as limit cost, the emphasis must be on developing “non-wire alternatives” such as smart systems for controlling demand, in order to take advantage of the current system in which electricity goes two ways, such as from rooftop solar back into the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Virtual Power Plants orchestrate distributed energy resources like rooftop solar, home batteries, and EVs to deliver grid services, demand response, peak shaving, and resilience, lowering costs while enhancing reliability across wholesale markets and local networks.

Key Points

Virtual Power Plants aggregate solar and batteries to provide grid services, cut peak costs, and boost reliability.

✅ Aggregates DERs via cloud to bid into wholesale markets

✅ Reduces peak demand, defers costly grid upgrades

✅ Enhances resilience vs outages, cyber risks, and wildfires

If “virtual” meetings can allow companies to gather without anyone being in the office, then remotely distributed solar panels and batteries can harness energy and act as “virtual power plants.” It is simply the orchestration of millions of dispersed assets within a smarter electricity infrastructure to manage the supply of electricity — power that can be redirected back to the grid and distributed to homes and businesses. 

The ultimate goal is to revamp the energy landscape, making it cleaner and more reliable. By using onsite generation such as rooftop solar and smart solar inverters in combination with battery storage, those services can reduce the network’s overall cost by deferring expensive infrastructure upgrades and by reducing the need to purchase cost-prohibitive peak power. 

“We expect virtual power plants, including aggregated home solar and batteries, to become more common and more impactful for energy consumers throughout the country in the coming years,” says Michael Sachdev, chief product officer for Sunrun Inc., a rooftop solar company, in an interview. “The growth of home solar and batteries will be most apparent in places where households have an immediate need for backup power, as they do in California, where grid reliability pressures have led utilities to turn off the electricity to reduce wildfire risk.”

Most Popular In: Energy

How Extremophile Bacteria Living In Nuclear Reactors Might Help Us Make Vaccines
Apple, Ford, McDonald’s, Microsoft Among This Summer’s Climate Leaders
What’s Next For Oil And Gas?
Home battery adoption, such as Tesla Powerwall systems, is becoming commonplace in Hawaii and in New England, he adds, because those distributed assets are improving the efficiency of the electrical network. It is a trend that is reshaping the country’s energy generation and delivery system by relying more on clean onsite generation and less on fossil fuels.

Sunrun has recently formed a business partnership with AutoGrid, which will manage Sunrun’s fleet of rechargeable batteries. It is a cloud-based system that allows Sunrun to work with utilities to dispatch its “storage fleet” to optimize the economic results. AutoGrid compiles the data and makes AI-driven forecasts that enable it to pinpoint potential trouble spots. 

But a distributed energy system, or a virtual power plant, would have 200,000 subsystems. Or, 200,000 5 kilowatt batteries would be the equivalent of one power plant that has a capacity of 1,000 megawatts. 

“A virtual power plant acts as a generator,” says Amit Narayan, chief executive officer of AutoGrid, in an interview. “It is one of the top five innovations of the decade. If you look at Sunrun, 60% of every solar system it sells in the Bay Area is getting attached to a battery. The value proposition comes when you can aggregate these batteries and market them as a generation unit. The pool of individual assets may improve over time. But when you add these up, it is better than a large-scale plant. It is like going from mainframe computers to laptops.”

The AutoGrid executive goes on to say that centralized systems are less reliable than distributed resources. While one battery could falter, 200,000 of them that operate from remote locations will prove to be more durable — able to withstand cyber attacks and wildfires. Sunrun’s Sachdev adds that the ability to store energy in batteries, as seen in California’s expanding grid-scale battery use supporting reliability, and to move it to the grid on demand creates value not just for homes and businesses but also for the network as a whole.

The good news is that the trend worldwide is to make it easier for smaller distributed assets, including energy storage for microgrids that support local resilience, to get the same regulatory treatment as power plants. System operators have been obligated to call up those power supplies that are the most cost-effective and that can be easily dispatched. But now regulators are giving virtual power plants comprised of solar and batteries the same treatment. 

In the United States, for example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order in 2018 that allows storage resources to participate in wholesale markets — where electricity is bought directly from generators before selling that power to homes and businesses. Under the ruling, virtual power plants are paid the same as traditional power suppliers. A federal appeals court this month upheld the commission’s order, saying that it had the right to ensure “technological advances in energy storage are fully realized in the marketplace.” 

“In the past, we have used back-up generators,” notes AutoGrid’s Narayan. “As we move toward more automation, we are opening up the market to small assets such as battery storage and electric vehicles. As we deploy more of these assets, there will be increasing opportunities for virtual power plants.” 

Virtual power plants have the potential to change the energy horizon by harnessing locally-produced solar power and redistributing that to where it is most needed — all facilitated by cloud-based software that has a full panoramic view. At the same time, those smaller distributed assets can add more reliability and give consumers greater peace-of-mind — a dynamic that does, indeed, beef-up America’s generation and delivery network.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Pickering Nuclear Plant Extension faces CNSC approval as Ontario Power Generation pursues license renewal before the June 30, 2023 deadline, amid a 2025 capacity crunch and grid reliability risks from decommissioning and overlapping nuclear outages.

Key Points

A plan to run Pickering past 2024 to Sept 2026, pending CNSC license renewal to address Ontario's 2025 capacity gap.

✅ CNSC approval needed for operation beyond Dec 31, 2024

✅ OPG aims to file by June 30, 2023 deadline

✅ Extension targets grid reliability through 2026

Ontario’s electricity generator has yet to file an official application to extend the life of the Pickering nuclear power plant, more than eight months after the Ford government announced a plan to continue operating Pickering for longer.

As the province faces an electricity shortfall in 2025 and beyond, the Ford government scrambled to prolong the Pickering power plant until September 2026, in order to guarantee a steady supply of power as the province experiences a rise in demand and shutdowns at other nuclear power plants.

The life extension may come down to the wire, however, as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the federal regulator tasked with approving or denying the extension, tells Global News the province has yet to file key paperwork.

The information is required for the application, including materials related to the proposed Pickering B refurbishment, and the government now has a month before the deadline runs out.

“The Commission requires that Ontario Power Generation submit specific information by June 30, 2023, if it intends to operate the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station beyond December 31, 2024,” the CNSC told Global News in a statement. “The Commission Registry has not yet received an application from Ontario Power Generation.”

If Ontario doesn’t receive the green light, the power plant which currently is responsible for 14 per cent of the province’s energy grid will be decommissioned in 2025, leaving the province with a significant electricity supply gap if replacement sources are not secured.

For its part, the Ford government doesn’t seem concerned about the impending timeline, even though the station was slated to close as planned, suggesting the Crown corporation responsible for the application will get it in on time.

“OPG is on track to submit their application before the end of June and has already started to submit supporting materials as part of the regulatory process toward clean power goals,” a spokesperson for energy minister Todd Smith said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

White Pines Project cancellation highlights Ontario's wind farm contract dispute in Prince Edward County, involving IESO approvals, Progressive Conservatives' legislation, potential court action, and costs to ratepayers amid green energy policy shifts.

Key Points

The termination effort for Ontario's White Pines wind farm contract, triggering legal, legislative, and cost disputes.

✅ Contract with IESO dates to 2009; final approval during election

✅ PCs seek legislation insulating taxpayers from litigation

✅ Cancellation could exceed $100M; cost impact on ratepayers

Cancelling an eastern Ontario green energy project that has been under development for nearly a decade could cost more than $100 million, the president of the company said Wednesday, warning that the dispute could be headed to the courts.

Ontario's governing Progressive Conservatives said this week that one of their first priorities during the legislature's summer sitting would be to cancel the contract for the White Pines Project in Prince Edward County.

Ian MacRae, president of WPD Canada, the company behind the project, said he was stunned by the news given that the project is weeks away from completion.

"What our lawyers are telling us is we have a completely valid contract that we've had since 2009 with the (Independent Electricity System Operator). ... There's no good reason for the government to breach that contract," he said.

The government has also not reached out to discuss the cancellation, he said. Meanwhile, construction on the site is in full swing, he said.

"Over the last couple weeks we've had an average of 100 people on site every day," he said. "The footprint of the project is 100 per cent in. So, all the access roads, the concrete for the base foundations, much of the electrical infrastructure. The sub-station is nearing completion."

The project includes nine wind turbines meant to produce enough electricity to power just over 3,000 homes annually, even as Ontario looks to build on an electricity deal with Quebec for additional supply. All of the turbines are expected to be installed over the next three weeks, with testing scheduled for the following month.

MacRae couldn't say for certain who would have to pay for the cancellation, electricity ratepayers or taxpayers.

"Somehow that money would come from IESO and it would be my assumption that would end up somehow on the ratepayers, despite legislation to lower electricity rates now in place," he said. "We just need to see what the government has in mind and who will foot the bill."

Progressive Conservative house leader Todd Smith, who represents the riding where the project is being built, said the legislation to cancel the project will also insulate taxpayers from domestic litigation over the dismantling of green energy projects.

"This is something that the people of Prince Edward County have been fighting ... for seven years," he said. "This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anybody that this was at the top of the agenda for the incoming government, which has also eyed energy independence in recent decisions."

Smith questioned why Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator gave the final approval for the project during the spring election campaign.

"There's a lot of questions about how this ever got greenlighted in the first place," he said. "This project was granted its notice to proceed two days into the election campaign ... when (the IESO) should have been in the caretaker mode."

Terry Young, the IESO's vice president of policy, engagement and innovation, said the agency could not comment because of the pending introduction of legislation to cancel the deal, following a recent auditor-regulator dispute that drew attention to oversight.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said the new Tory government is behaving like the previous Liberal government by cancelling energy projects and tearing up contracts amid ongoing debates over Ontario's hydro mess and affordability. She likened the Tory plan to the Liberal gas plant scandal that saw the government relocate two plants at a substantial cost to taxpayers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News