Outside experts help with reactor crisis

Alberta Electricity Market Reform reshapes policy under the UCP, weighing a capacity market versus energy-only design, AESO reliability rules, renewables targets, coal phase-out, carbon pricing, consumer rates, and investment certainty before AUC decisions.

Key Points

Alberta Electricity Market Reform is the UCP plan to reassess capacity vs energy-only, renewables, and carbon pricing.

✅ Reviews capacity market timeline and AESO procurement

✅ Alters subsidies for renewables; slows wind and solar growth

✅ Adjusts industrial carbon levy; audits Balancing Pool losses

Hearings kicked off this week into the future of the province’s electricity market design, amid an electricity market reshuffle pledged by the province, but a high-stakes decision about the industry’s fate — affecting billions of dollars in investment and consumer costs — won’t be made inside the meeting room of the Alberta Utilities Commission.

Instead, it will take place in the office of Jason Kenney, as the incoming premier prepares to pivot away from the seismic reforms to Alberta’s electricity sector introduced by the Notley government.

The United Conservative Party has promised to adopt market-based policies, reflecting changes to how Alberta produces and pays for power, that will reset how the sector operates, from its approach to renewable energy and carbon pricing to re-evaluating the planned transition to an electricity “capacity market.”

“Every ball in electricity is up in the air right now,” Vittoria Bellissimo, of the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta, said Tuesday during a break in the commission hearings.

Industry players are uncertain how quickly the UCP will change direction on power policies, but there’s little doubt Kenney’s government will take a strikingly different approach to the sector that keeps the lights on in Alberta.

“There’s some things they are going to change that are going to impact the electricity industry significantly,” said Duane Reid-Carlson, chief executive of consultancy EDC Associates.

“But I don’t think it’s going to be upheaval. I think the new government will proceed with caution because electricity is the foundation of our economy.”

Alberta’s electricity market has been turned on its head in recent years due to the recession, power prices dropping to near two-decade lows and several transformative policies initiated by the NDP.

The Notley government’s climate plan included an accelerated phase-out of all coal-fired generation and set targets for more renewable energy.

The most significant, but least-understood, move has been the planned shift to an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Under the strategy, generators will no longer solely be paid for the power produced and sold into the market; they will also receive payments for having electricity capacity available to the grid on demand.

The change was recommended by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) as a way to reduce price volatility and provide more reliability than the current energy-only market, which some argue needs more competition to deliver better outcomes.

The independent system operator and industry officials have spent more than two years planning the transition since the switch was announced in late 2016. Proposed rules for the new system, outlining market changes, are now being discussed at the Alberta Utilities Commission hearings.

However, there is no ironclad guarantee the system remake will go ahead following the UCP’s election victory last week — amid calls to scrap the overhaul from a Calgary retailer — it plans to study the issue further — while other substantive electricity changes are already in store.

The UCP has promised to end “costly subsidies” to renewable energy developments and abandon the NDP’s pledge to have such energy sources make up 30 per cent of all power generation by 2030.

It will remove the planned phase-out of coal-fired electricity generation, although federal regulations for a 2030 prohibition remain in place.

It will also ask the auditor general to conduct a special audit of the massive losses sustained by the province’s Balancing Pool due to power purchase arrangements being handed back to the agency three years ago.

While Kenney has pledged to cancel the provincewide carbon tax, a levy on large industrial greenhouse gas emitters (such has power plants) will still be charged, although at a reduced rate of $20 a tonne.

The biggest unknown remains the power market’s structure, which underpins how the entire system operates.

The UCP has promised to consult on the shift to the capacity market and report back to Albertans within 90 days.

The complex issue may sound like an eye-glazer, but it will have a profound effect on industry investment, as well as how much consumers pay on their monthly electricity bills.

A number of industry players worry the capacity market will lead AESO to procure more power than is necessary, foisting unnecessary costs onto all Albertans.

“I still have concerns for what the impact on consumers is going to be,” said energy market consultant Sheldon Fulton. “I’d love to see the capacity market go away.”

An analysis by EDC Associates found the transition to a capacity market will procure additional electricity before it’s needed, requiring consumers to pay up to 40 per cent more — an extra $1.4 billion — for power in 2021-22 than under the existing market structure.

“I don’t think there’s any prejudged outcome,” said Blake Shaffer, former head trader at TransAlta Corp. and a fellow-in-residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.

“But it really matters about getting this right.”

Evan Bahry, executive director of the Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta, said the fact the UCP’s review was confined to just 90 days is helpful, as it avoids throwing the entire industry into a prolonged period of uncertainty.

As for the greening of Alberta’s power grid, amid growing attention to clean grids and storage, the demise of the NDP’s Renewable Electricity Program will likely slow down the rapid pace of wind and solar development. But it’s unlikely to stop the growth trend as costs continue to fall for such developments.

“Renewables over the last number of years have evolved to the point that they make sense on a subsidy-free basis,” said Dan Balaban, CEO of Greengate Power Corp., which has developed 480 MW of wind power in Alberta and Ontario.

“There is a path to clean electricity ahead.”

Chris Varcoe is a Calgary Herald columnist.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Electricity Imports surge to record levels as EU neighbors bolster grid stability amid Russian strikes, supporting energy security, preventing blackouts, and straining cross-border transmission capacity while Ukraine rebuilds damaged infrastructure and diversifies with renewables.

Key Points

Emergency EU power purchases stabilizing Ukraine’s grid after war damage.

✅ Record 19,000 MWh per day from EU interconnectors

✅ Supports grid stability and blackout prevention

✅ Cost and transmission upgrades challenge sustainability

Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine has extended far beyond the battlefield, with critical infrastructure becoming a target. Ukraine's once-robust energy system has sustained significant damage amid energy ceasefire violations and Russian missile and drone strikes. To cope with these disruptions and maintain power supplies for Ukrainian citizens, the country is turning to record-breaking electricity imports from neighboring European nations.

Prior to the war, Ukraine enjoyed a self-sufficient energy sector, even exporting electricity to neighboring countries. However, targeted attacks on power plants and transmission lines have crippled generation capacity. The situation is particularly dire in eastern and southern Ukraine, where ongoing fighting has caused extensive damage.

Faced with this energy crisis, Ukraine is looking to Europe for a lifeline. The country's energy ministry has announced plans to import a staggering amount of electricity – exceeding 19,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per day – to prepare for winter and stabilize supplies. This surpasses the previous record set in March 2024 and represents a significant increase in Ukraine's reliance on external power sources.

Several European nations are stepping up to support Ukraine. Countries like Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, which maintains quiet energy ties with Russia today, and Moldova have agreed to provide emergency electricity supplies. These imports will help stabilize Ukraine's power grid and prevent widespread blackouts, especially during peak consumption hours.

The reliance on imports, however, presents its own set of challenges. Firstly, the sheer volume of electricity needed puts a strain on the capacity of neighboring grids. Upgrading and expanding transmission infrastructure will be crucial to ensure a smooth flow of electricity. Secondly, the cost of imported electricity can be higher than domestically generated power amid price hikes and instability globally, placing additional pressure on Ukraine's already strained finances.

Beyond these immediate concerns, the long-term implications of relying on external energy sources need to be considered. Ukraine's long-term goal is to rebuild its own energy infrastructure and regain energy independence. International assistance, including energy security support measures, will be crucial in this endeavor. Financial aid and technical expertise can help Ukraine repair damaged power plants, diversify its energy mix through further investment in renewables, and develop more resilient grid infrastructure.

The war in Ukraine has underscored the importance of energy security. A nation's dependence on a single source of energy, be it domestic or foreign, leaves it vulnerable to disruption, as others consider national security and fossil fuels in their own policies. For Ukraine, diversification and building a more resilient energy infrastructure are key takeaways from this crisis.

The international community also has a role to play. Supporting Ukraine's energy sector not only helps the nation weather the current crisis but also strengthens European energy security as a whole, where concerns over Europe's energy nightmare remain pronounced. A stable and independent Ukraine, less reliant on Russian energy, contributes to a more secure and prosperous Europe.

As the war in Ukraine continues, the battle for energy security rages on. While the immediate focus is on keeping the lights on through imports, the long-term goal for Ukraine is to rebuild a stronger, more resilient energy sector that can power the nation's future. The international community's support will be crucial in helping Ukraine achieve this goal.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nation Rise Wind Farm Ruling overturns Ontario cancellation, as Superior Court finds the minister's decision unreasonable; EDP Renewables restarts 100-megawatt project near Cornwall, citing jobs, clean energy, and procedural fairness over bat habitat concerns.

Key Points

Ontario court quashes cancellation, letting EDP Renewables finish 100 MW Nation Rise project and resume clean energy.

✅ Judges call minister's decision unreasonable, unfair

✅ EDP Renewables to restart construction near Cornwall

✅ 100 MW, 29 turbines; costs awarded, appeal considered

Construction of a wind farm in eastern Ontario, as wind power makes gains nationwide, will move ahead after a court quashed a provincial government decision to cancel the project.

In a ruling released Wednesday, a panel of Ontario Superior Court judges said the province's decision to scrap the Nation Rise Wind Farm in December 2019 did not meet the proper requirements.

At the time, Environment Minister Jeff Yurek revoked the approvals of the project near Cornwall, Ont., citing the risk to three bat species.

That decision came despite a ruling from the province's Environmental Review Tribunal that determined the risk the project posed to the bat population was negligible.

The judges said the minister's decision was "unreasonable" and "procedurally unfair."

"The decision does not meet requirements of transparency, justification, and intelligibility, as the Minister has failed to adequately explain his decision," the judges wrote in their decision.

The company behind the project, EDP Renewables, said the 29-turbine wind farm was almost complete when its approval was revoked in December, even as Alberta saw TransAlta scrap a wind farm in a separate development.

The company said Thursday it plans to restart construction on the 100-megawatt wind farm.

"EDPR is eager to recommence construction of the Nation Rise Wind Farm, which will bring much-needed jobs and investment to the community," the company said in a statement. "This delay has resulted in unnecessary expenditures to-date, at a time when governments and businesses should be focused on reducing costs and restarting the economy."

A spokesman for Yurek said the government is disappointed with the outcome of the case but did not comment on a possible appeal.

"At this time, we are reviewing the decision and are carefully considering our next steps," Andrew Buttigieg said in a statement.

NDP climate change critic Peter Tabuns said the court decision is an embarrassment for the minister and the government. He urged the government not to pursue an appeal.

Yurek "was found to have ignored the evidence and the facts," he said. "They didn't just lose, their case collapsed. They had nothing to stand on. Taking this to appeal would be a complete and total waste of money."

Green party Leader Mike Schreiner said the ruling proves the government was acting based on ideology over evidence when it revoked the project's approval.

"As we shift towards a post-COVID recovery, we need the Ford government to give up the irrational crusade against affordable and reliable clean energy," Schreiner said in a statement.

Last year, the NDP revealed the province had spent $231 million to cancel more than 750 renewable energy contracts, a move Ford said he was proud of, shortly after winning the 2018 election.

The Progressive Conservatives have blamed the previous Liberal government, as leadership candidates debate how to fix power, for signing the bad energy deals while the province had an oversupply of electricity.

The Ford government, amid a new stance on wind power, has also said that by cancelling the contracts it would ultimately save ratepayers $790 million -- a figure industry officials have disputed.

At the time of the wind farm cancellation, the government also said it would introduce legislation that would protect consumers from any costs incurred, though a developer warned cancellations could exceed $100M at the time.

It has since acknowledged it will have to pay some companies to cancel the deals and set aside $231 million to reach agreements with those firms, and more recently has moved to reintroduce renewable projects in some cases.

On Wednesday, the judges awarded Nation Rise $126,500 in costs, which the government will have to pay.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

China 2060 Carbon-Neutral Energy Transition projects tripled electricity, rapid electrification, wind and solar dominance, scalable hydrogen, CCUS, and higher carbon pricing to meet net-zero goals while decarbonizing heavy industry and transport.

Key Points

Shell's outlook for China to reach net zero by 2060 via electrification, renewables, hydrogen, CCUS, and carbon pricing.

✅ Power supply to 60% of energy; generation triples by 2060.

✅ Wind and solar reach 80% of electricity; coal declines sharply.

✅ Hydrogen scales to 17 EJ; CCUS and carbon pricing expand.

China may triple electricity generation to supply 60 percent of the country's total energy under Beijing's carbon-neutral goal by 2060, up from the current 23 per cent, according to Royal Dutch Shell.

Shell is one of the largest global investors in China's energy sector, with business covering gas production, petrochemicals and a retail fuel network. A leading supplier of liquefied natural gas, it has recently expanded into low-carbon business such as hydrogen power and electric vehicle charging.

In a rare assessment of the country's energy sector by an international oil major, Shell said China needed to take quick action this decade to stay on track to reach the carbon-neutrality goal.

China has mapped out plans to reach peak emissions by 2030, and aims to reduce coal power production over the coming years, but has not yet revealed any detailed carbon roadmap for 2060.

This includes investing in a reliable and renewable power system, including compressed air generation, and demonstrating technologies that transform heavy industry using hydrogen, biofuel and carbon capture and utilization.

"With early and systematic action, China can deliver better environmental and social outcomes for its citizens while being a force for good in the global fight against climate change," Mallika Ishwaran, chief economist of Shell International, told a webinar hosted by the company's China business.

Shell expects China's electricity generation to rise three-fold to more than 60 exajoules (EJ) in 2060 from 20 EJ in 2020, even amid power supply challenges reported recently.

Solar and wind power are expected to surpass coal as the largest sources of electricity by 2034 in China, reflecting projections that renewables will eclipse coal globally by mid-decade, versus the current 10 percent, rising to 80 percent by 2060, Shell said.

Hydrogen is expected to scale up to 17 EJ, or equivalent to 580 million tonnes of coal by 2060, up from almost negligible currently, adding over 85 percent of the hydrogen will be produced through electrolysis, supported by PEM hydrogen R&D across the sector, powered by renewable and nuclear electricity, Shell said.

Hydrogen will meet 16 percent of total energy use in 2060 with heavy industry and long-distance transport as top hydrogen users, the firm added.

The firm also expects China's carbon price to rise to 1,300 yuan (CDN$256.36) per tonne in 2060 from 300 yuan in 2030.

Nuclear, on a steady development track, and biomass will have niche but important roles for power generation in the years to come, Shell said.

Electricity generated from biomass, combined with carbon, capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), provide a source of negative emissions for the rest of the energy system from 2053, it added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

COVID-19 Energy Burden drives higher electricity bills as income falls, intensifying energy poverty, utility shut-offs, and affordability risks for low-income households; policy moratoriums, bill relief, and efficiency upgrades are vital responses.

Key Points

The COVID-19 energy burden is the rising share of income spent on energy as bills increase and earnings decline.

✅ Rising home demand and lost wages increase energy cost share.

✅ Mandated shut-off moratoriums and reconnections protect health.

✅ Fund assistance, efficiency, and solar for LMI households.

I have asthma. It’s a private piece of medical information that I don’t normally share with people, but it makes the potential risks associated with exposure to the coronavirus all the more dangerous for me. But I’m not alone. 107 million people in the U.S. have pre-existing medical conditions like asthma and heart disease; the same pre-existing conditions that elevate their risk of facing a life-threatening situation were we to contract COVID-19. There are, however, tens of millions more house-bound Americans with a condition that is likely to be exacerbated by COVID-19: The energy burden.

The energy burden is a different kind of pre-existing condition:
In the last four weeks, 22 million people filed for unemployment. Millions of people will not have steady income (or the healthcare tied to it) to pay rent and utility bills for the foreseeable future which means that thousands, possibly millions of home-bound Americans will struggle to pay for energy.

Your energy burden is the amount of your monthly income that goes to paying for energy, like your monthly electric bill. So, when household energy use increases or income decreases, your energy burden rises. The energy burden is not a symptom of the pandemic and the economic downturn; it is more like a pre-existing condition for many Americans.

Before the coronavirus outbreak, I shared a few maps that showed how expensive electricity is for some. The energy burden in most pronounced in places already struggling economically, like in Appalachia, where residents in some counties must put more than 30 percent of their income toward their electric bills, and in the Midwest where states such as Michigan have some families spending more than 1/5 of their income on energy bills. The tragic facts are that US families living below the poverty line are far more likely to also be suffering from their energy burden.

But like other pre-existing conditions, the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic are exacerbating the underlying problems afflicting communities across the country.

Critical responses to minimize the spread of COVID-19 are social distancing, washing hands frequently, covering our faces with masks and staying at home. More time at home for most will drive up energy bills, and not by a little. Estimates on how much electricity demand during COVID-19 will increase vary but I’ve seen estimates as high as a 20% increase on average. For some families that’s a bag of groceries or a refill on prescription medication.

What happens when the power gets turned off?
Under normal conditions, if you cannot pay your electric bill your electricity can get turned off. This can have devastating consequences. Most states have protections for health and medical reasons and some states have protections during extreme heat or cold weather. But enforcement of those protections can vary by utility service area and place unnecessary burdens on the customer.

UCS
Only Florida has no protections of any kind against utility shut-offs when health or medical reasons would merit protection against it. However, when it comes to protection against extreme heat, only a few states have mandatory protections based on temperature thresholds.

The NAACP has also pointed out that utilities have unceremoniously disconnected the power of millions of people, disproportionally African-American and Latinx households.

April tends to be a mild month for most of the country, but the South already had its first heat wave at the end of March. If this pandemic lasts into the summer, utility disconnects could become deadly, and efforts to prevent summer power outages will be even more critical to public health. In the summer, during extreme summer heat families can’t turn off the A/C and go to the movies if we are following public health measures and sheltering in place. Lots of families that don’t have or can’t afford to run A/C would otherwise gather at local community pools, beaches, or in cooling centers, but with parks, pools and community groups closed to prevent the virus’s spread, what will happen to these families in July or August?

But we won’t have to wait till the summer to see how families will be hard hit by falling behind on bills and losing power. Here are a few ways electricity disconnection policies cause people harm during the pandemic:

Loss of electricity during the COVID-19 pandemic means families will lose their ability to refrigerate essential food supplies.
Child abuse guidance discusses how unsanitary household conditions are a contributing factor to child protective services involvement. Unsanitary household conditions can include, for example, rotting food (which might happen if electricity is cut off).

HUD’s handbook on federally subsidized housing includes a chapter on termination, which says that lease agreements can be terminated for repeated minor infractions including failing to pay utilities.
Airway machines used to treat respiratory ailments—pre-existing conditions in this pandemic—will not work. Our elderly neighbors in particular might rely on medicine that requires refrigeration or medical equipment that requires electricity. They too have fallen victim to utility shut-offs even during the pandemic.

Empowering solutions are available today

Decisionmakers seeking solutions can look to implement utility shut off moratoriums as a good start. Good news is that many utilities have voluntarily taken action to that effect, and New Jersey and New York have suspended shut-offs, one of the best trackers on who is taking what action has been assembled by Energy Policy Institute.

But voluntary actions do not always provide comprehensive protection, and they certainly have not been universally adopted across the country. Some utilities are waiving fees as relief measures, and some moratoriums only apply to customers directly affected by COVID-19, which will place additional onerous red tape on households that are stricken and perhaps unable to access testing. Others might only be an extension of standard medical shut off protections. Moratoriums put in place by voluntary action can also be revoked or lifted by voluntary action, which does not provide any sense of certainty to people struggling to make ends meet.

This is why the US needs mandatory moratoriums on all utility disconnections. These normally would be rendered at the state level, either by a regulatory commission, legislative act, or even an emergency executive order. But the inconsistent leadership among states in response to the COVID-19 crisis suggests that Congressional action is needed to ensure that all vulnerable utility customers are protected. That’s exactly what a coalition of organizations, including UCS, is calling for in future federal aid legislation. UCS has called for a national moratorium on utility shut-offs.

And let’s be clear, preventing new shut-offs isn’t enough. Cutting power off at residence during a pandemic is not good public policy. People who are without electricity should have it restored so residents can safely shelter in place and help flatten the curve. So far, only Colorado and Wisconsin’s leadership has taken this option.

Addressing the root causes of energy poverty
Preventing shut-offs is a good first step, but the increased bill charges will nevertheless place greater economic pressure on an incalculable number of families. Addressing the root of the problem (energy affordability) must be prioritized when we begin to recover from the health and economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One way policymakers can do that is to forgive outstanding balances on utility bills, perhaps with an eligibility cap based on income. Additional funds could be made available to those who are still struggling to pay their bills via capping bills, waiving late payment fees, automating payment plans or other protective measures that rightfully place consumers (particularly vulnerable consumers) at the center of any energy-related COVID-19 response. Low-and-moderate-income energy efficiency and solar programs should be funded as much as practically possible.

New infrastructure, particularly new construction that is slated for public housing, subsidized housing, or housing specifically marketed for low- and moderate-income families, should include smart thermostats, better insulation, and energy-efficient appliances.

Implementing these solutions may seem daunting, let us not forget that one of the best ways to ease people’s energy burden is to keep a utility’s overall energy costs low. That means state utility commissions must be vigilant in utility rate cases and fuel recovery cost dockets to protect people facing unfathomable economic pressures. Unscrupulous utilities have been known to hide unnecessary costs in our energy bills. Commissions and their staff are overwhelmed at this time, but they should be applying extra scrutiny during proceedings when utilities are recovering costs associated with delivering energy.

What might a utility try to get past the commission?
Well, residential demand is up, so for many people, bills will increase. However, wholesale electricity rates are low right now, in some cases at all-time lows. Why? Because industrial and commercial demand reductions (from social distancing at home) have more than offset residential demand increases. Overall US electricity demand is flat or declining, and supply/demand economics predicts that when demand decreases, prices decrease.

At the same time, natural gas prices have set record lows each month of this year and that’s a trend that is expected to hold true for a while.

Low demand plus low gas prices mean wholesale market prices are incredibly low. Utilities should be taking advantage of low market prices to ensure that they deliver electricity to customers at as low a cost as possible. Utilities must also NOT over-run coal plants uneconomically or lean on aging capacity despite disruptions in coal and nuclear that can invite brownouts because that will not only needlessly cost customers more, but it will also increase air pollution which will exacerbate respiratory issues and susceptibility to COVID-19, according to a recent study published by Harvard.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News