50 Dirtiest U.S. Power Plants

By Electricity Forum


NFPA 70e Training

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:
$199
Coupon Price:
$149
Reserve Your Seat Today
Even as some of AmericaÂ’s dirtiest power plants start to clean up their act in terms of certain toxic emissions, the carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution linked to global warming from large, old, and inefficient electricity-generating facilities continues unchecked and could rise 34 percent by 2030, according to a report from the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).

A searchable database ranking 378 U.S. power plants on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and mercury pollution is now available online at http://www.dirtykilowatts.org.

The 12 states with the heaviest concentrations of the dirtiest power plants - in terms of total tons of carbon dioxide emitted - are: Texas (five, including two of the top 10 dirtiest plants); Pennsylvania (four); Indiana (four, including two of the top 10 dirtiest plants); Alabama (three); Georgia (three, including two of the top three dirtiest plants); North Carolina (three); Ohio (three); West Virginia (three); Wyoming (two); Florida (two); Kentucky (two); and New Mexico (two).

The "Dirty Kilowatts" report also ranks the worst power plants on the basis of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury, looking at all four pollutants both in terms of total tons of emissions and also emission rate (pounds per megawatt-hour of electricity produced). For example, just 14 percent of the 378 ranked fossil-fuel-burning power plants account for 40 percent of their sulfur dioxide emissions.

Taken together, the 378 plants ranked in this report represent about a third of all power plants tracked in EPAÂ’s inventory, but they account for almost 90 percent of the electricity generated by the plants in EPAÂ’s inventory, and approximately half of total U.S. electric generation. Plants in North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Indiana, and South Dakota top the non-CO2 rankings.

The EIP report notes: “Nationwide, the power plants that provide electricity to run our homes, businesses, and factories also account for 40 percent of carbon dioxide, roughly two thirds of sulfur dioxide, 22 percent of nitrogen oxides, and roughly a third of all mercury emissions (in the U.S.)… Power plants are major contributors to global warming, emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. In addition, power plants emit millions of tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), pollutants that trigger asthma attacks and contribute to lung and heart disease, and cause smog and haze in cities and national parks. And, power plants emit dangerous toxins like mercury, a neurotoxin especially harmful to children and developing fetuses.”

Ilan Levin, counsel, Environmental Integrity Project, said: “While Congress is poised to seriously consider legislation to limit the greenhouse gases that made 2006 the hottest year on record, the electric power industry is racing to build a new fleet of coal-fired power plants that rely on conventional combustion technologies that would only accelerate global warming. Once utility companies secure their air pollution permits, we can expect them to argue that these new plants should be ‘grandfathered,’ or exempt from any pending limits on greenhouse gases. We’ve been through this before.

“When the original Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the electric utility industry persuaded Congress to not impose strict pollution controls on old power plants, because they would soon be replaced by newer state-of-the-art facilities. Yet despite the industry’s promises, many of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants continue to operate today. Americans pay the bill for that delay when they suffer the ill health consequences of breathing needlessly dirty air.”

Mary Ann Hitt, executive director of the regional nonprofit organization Appalachian Voices in Asheville, N.C., said: “On the ground in Appalachia, we see the impact of these dirty coal plants every day and in every part of our lives. We are losing homes and communities to mountaintop removal mining, and losing the lives of loved ones to health problems triggered by air pollution.”

Jan Jarrett, vice president, Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), Harrisburg, PA, said: “This report shows, most of all, that the importance of strong environmental laws cannot be overstated. Reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen pollution from power plants are a direct result of a strong federal Clean Air Act, but it took more than 30 years. That’s one of the reasons we fought so hard for the Pennsylvania mercury rule, which will cut mercury pollution by 90 percent by 2015. We knew the federal government wasn’t about to take action, so the state of Pennsylvania had to. Now it’s time to demand cuts in carbon dioxide pollution to fight global warming.”

Valerie True, spokesperson, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, with offices in Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina, said: “This report not only highlights the threats from old power plants, but the future risk should utility customers be forced to pay for the expansion of this dirty form of energy. Proposals for new coal-fired power plants are popping up across the nation. Given the imminent risks of global warming, the nation needs to take immediate action to clean up these old power plants and stop the construction of new coal-fired plants.”

Dean Hulse, member, Clean Electricity Committee of the Dakota Resource Council, Dickinson, N.D., said: “This report is the ‘canary in the coal mine’— it points out serious problems that require immediate attention. The global warming debate is over. We are heating up the earth, and the burning of coal is one of the biggest contributors of global warming pollution.

“Beyond the burning of coal is the issue of coal mining. Although not discussed in this report, the mining of coal damages land and water and moves farmers and ranchers off the land. In North Dakota, keeping the coal dinosaur alive hinders the economic development of renewable energy, including wind energy, in which North Dakota leads the nation.”

The new EIP report highlights ways to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. First, the time has come to phase out and permanently retire the nationÂ’s oldest and least efficient plants, and reduce our dependence on coal. Reducing electricity demand, through smarter building codes, and low-cost conservation efforts such as weatherization of homes and installation of more efficient home and business appliances, will lead to CO2 reductions.

Investments in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, should be encouraged, and investments in fossil fuel-based electric generation should be a last resort.

And, if new coal plants are to be built, then they must be designed to drastically reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon capture and sequestration have promise, and currently available and economically viable technologies – for example, “ultra-supercritical” designs for steam boilers, gas turbines (instead of steam), blending cleaner fuels with coal, such as natural gas and biomass – can almost double fossil-fuel-fired plants’ thermal efficiency, up to 60 percent, thus lowering CO2 emissions.

One bright spot in the EIP report: 37 years after the Clean Air Act, power plants are finally starting to clean up their sulfur dioxide emissions, thanks to a combination of factors including enforcement actions, tough state laws, and reductions anticipated from EPAÂ’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

The scrubbers that power companies are beginning to install will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by as much as 90 percent as some of the dirtiest plants. However, while CAIR establishes a two-phase cap for S02, ending at 2.5 million tons in Eastern states in 2015, due to early reductions and banking of credits for use later, the cap is unlikely to be met until well beyond 2015.

KEY EIP FINDINGS

Carbon Dioxide: Given the absence of any federal standards, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are now at roughly 2.5 billion tons per year. About two-thirds of the heat energy that is consumed at a typical coal-fired power plant is wasted, and that inefficiency contributes directly to high CO2 emissions from these facilities. Eliminating CO2 emissions from existing power plants is currently technically unfeasible, but reducing electricity demand, through energy efficiency and conservation measures, would yield significant CO2 reductions in the near-term, while new technologies develop.

One major cause for concern: A wave of new coal-fired power plants are being permitted and built across the country. Absent aggressive national climate policy and the retirement of existing facilities, these new coal plants will contribute to a projected 34 percent increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions over the 2005-2030 period.

Large lignite-burning power plants in North Dakota and Texas rank among the worst CO2 polluters based on emission rate. Lignite is a low-grade fuel, abundant in places like Texas and North Dakota, and its comparatively low BTU (heat) value means more CO2 for the electricity it generates. Nine plants across 8 states rank in the top 50 for both overall emissions rate and overall tons of CO2 emitted: Texas (TXUÂ’s Martin Lake and Monticello), Montana (Colstrip), Minnesota (Sherburne County), Wyoming (Laramie River), Indiana (Schahfer), Florida (Big Bend), Nebraska (Gerald Gentleman), and North Dakota (Coal Creek).

Sulfur Dioxide. Power plants, especially those that burn coal, are by far the largest single contributor of SO2 pollution in the United States, accounting for approximately 67 percent of all SO2 emissions nationwide. The top 50 plants averaged 21.1 pounds of sulfur dioxide per megawatt-hour, compared to only one pound per megawatt-hour for similar plants equipped with state of the art scrubbers.

Of all 378 plants ranked, the top 50 plants with the worst emission rates accounted for 40 percent of SO2 emissions, but only 13.7 percent of electric generation.

Indiana (five plants), Ohio (eight plants), Pennsylvania (eight plants), and Georgia (six plants) have the heaviest concentrations of the dirtiest plants in the nation for SO2. Together, these four states accounted for more than half of all the top 50 emitters. PSI EnergyÂ’s Gallagher plant, in Indiana, claimed the top spot as the nationÂ’s dirtiest power plant, generating just over 40 pounds of sulfur dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity.

Southern Company’s Bowen plant in Georgia continued to lead the nation as the top SO2 emitter, with a whopping 206,441 tons in 2006 – 20,000 tons more than it emitted in 2005, and 40,000 tons more than it emitted in 2004. Reliant’s Keystone plant in Pennsylvania was the number two highest emitter, with more than 160,000 tons of SO2. Both these plants are expected to install scrubbers by 2010, which should substantially bring down SO2 emissions.

Nitrogen Oxide: Nitrogen oxides emissions dropped slightly in 2006, and are expected to decline still further in eastern states over the next five years. Rules to limit the interstate transport of NOx during the summer ozone season in eastern states were adopted in the late nineties (the “NOx SIP Call”), and emission ceilings have been ratcheted steadily downward by law.

Also, the CAIR rule moves the Acid Rain (Phase 1) NOx cap forward a year, to 2009, and sets a 1.3 million ton cap in 2015. Lastly, tough new state standards like the Maryland Healthy Air Act should lead to additional reductions in year-round NOx emissions.

Unfortunately, this trend is not apparent in Western states where neither CAIR nor ozone transport rules apply. Many plants with high NOx emissions are located in these states, and in states not included in the NOx “SIP Call,” such as North Dakota, Minnesota, and Florida.

The top 50 plants had an average emission rate of 5.47 pounds of NOx per megawatt-hour, more than double the 2.57 lbs/MWh average for all 378 of the nation’s largest power plants. Of the 378 plants, the top 50 accounted for 25 percent of all NOx emissions but only 11.7 percent of net electric generation. Many plants in the top 50 are in states with less stringent NOx emission limits because they do not fall under the “NOx SIP call,” a federal rule designed to reduce summertime ozone in many eastern U.S. states. (NOx is a precursor to ground-level ozone.) This shows, not surprisingly, that electric utilities do not reduce NOx emissions unless they are required by law to do so. Of the 378 plants ranked, the top 50 accounted for 41.5 percent of NOx emissions, and only 28.7 percent of net generation. Arizona Public Service Company’s Four Corners (New Mexico), and TVA’s Paradise (Kentucky) plants topped the list, emitting 44,658 tons and 43,022 tons, respectively.

Mercury: Power plant mercury emissions remain steady as compared to previous years. EIP’s report ranks plants based on 2005 data, which is the most recent publicly available information from EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory. The 486 plants that are tracked in EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory reported 48.3 tons of mercury air emissions in 2005. Of these, this report ranks only the 274 “large” power plants (i.e., those plants that generated at least 2 million MWh in 2005). These largest 274 plants emitted 43.5 tons of mercury in 2005. Many plants are installing scrubbers to control sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions should decline as a co-benefit of SO2 controls. But, EPA’s new power plant mercury rule is unlikely to have any measurable benefit in the short-term. Power plant mercury emissions are expected to decline to roughly 24 tons in 2020 – significantly higher than EPA’s so-called cap of 15 tons by 2018, as power plants “bank” pollution allowances in the early years of the rule’s implementation. Widespread use of banked allowances means that EPA’s cap of 15 tons will likely not be met until 2026 or beyond.

For all plants ranked for mercury, the top 50 plants with the highest emission rates together emitted 16 tons of mercury – a third of all power plant mercury pollution – but generated less than 18 percent of the electricity. For the third year in a row, American Electric Power’s Pirkey plant (Texas) and Reliant’s Shawville plant (Pennsylvania) are the top two dirtiest plants based on mercury emission rates. The top fifty power plant mercury polluters accounted for almost 21 tons, or 43 percent of the electric power industry’s mercury emissions. TXU’s Martin Lake (Texas) plant ranked number one, with 1,705 pounds of mercury emissions. Southern Company’s Scherer plant (Georgia) came in second, emitting 1,662 pounds. Southern Company and TXU also shared the third place spot, reporting 1,595 pounds of mercury emissions from these companies’ Miller (Alabama) and Monticello (Texas) plants. A total of 23 plants in 12 states ranked in the top 50 for both emission rate and total pounds emitted. Six Texas plants rank in the top 50 for both emission rate and total pounds and two of these plants, TXU’s Big Brown and American Electric Power’s Pirkey, rank in the top 10 for both measures.

Power plants are responsible for about 40 percent of all man-made CO2 emissions in the nation, and unlike emissions of SO2 and NOx, the electric power industryÂ’s CO2 emissions are projected to steadily rise. Carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming.

Sulfates (from SO2) are major components of the fine particle pollution that plagues many parts of the country, especially communities nearby or directly downwind of coal-fired power plants. Sulfur dioxide also interacts with NOx to form nitric and sulfuric acids, commonly known as acid rain, which damages forests and acidifies soil and waterways. Harvard School of Public Health studies have shown that SO2 emissions from power plants significantly harm the cardiovascular and respiratory health of people who live near the plants. According to EPA studies, fine particle pollution from power plants results in thousands of premature deaths each year.

Nitrogen oxide is tied to ground-level ozone, which is especially harmful to children and people with respiratory problems such as asthma. Ground-level ozone is formed when NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in sunlight. NOx also reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form fine particle pollution, which damages lung tissue and is linked to premature death. Small particles penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease such as emphysema and bronchitis, and aggravate heart disease.

Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury air pollution, accounting for roughly 40 percent of all mercury emissions nationwide. Mercury is a highly toxic metal that, once released into the atmosphere, settles in lakes and rivers, where it moves up the food chain to humans. The Centers for Disease Control has found that roughly 10 percent of American women carry mercury concentrations at levels considered to put a fetus at risk of neurological damage.

Related News

Yukon receives funding for new wind turbines

Yukon Renewable Energy Funding backs wind turbines, grid-scale battery storage, and transmission line upgrades, cutting diesel dependence, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and strengthening Yukon Energy's isolated grid for remote communities, local jobs, and future growth.

 

Key Points

Federal support for Yukon projects adding wind, battery storage, and grid upgrades to cut diesel use and emissions.

✅ Three 100 kW wind turbines will power Destruction Bay.

✅ 8 MW battery storage smooths peaks and reduces diesel.

✅ Mayo-McQuesten 138 kV line upgrade boosts reliability.

 

Kluane First Nation in Yukon will receive a total of $3.1 million in funding from the federal government to install and operate wind turbines that will help reduce the community’s diesel reliance.

According to a release, the community will integrate three 100-kilowatt turbines in Destruction Bay, Yukon, providing a renewable energy source for their local power grid that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create local jobs in the community.

A $2-million investment from Natural Resources Canada came from the Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities Program, part of the Government of Canada’s Investing in Canada infrastructure plan, which supports green energy solutions across jurisdictions. Crown-Indigenous Relations’ and Northern Affairs Canada also contributed a $1.1-million investment from the Northern REACHE Program.

Also, the Government of Canada announced more than $39.2 million in funding for two Yukon Energy projects that will increase the reliability of Yukon’s electrical grid, including exploration of a potential connection to the B.C. grid to bolster resiliency, and help build the robust energy system needed to support future growth. The investment comes from the government’s Green Infrastructure Stream (GIS) of the Investing in Canada infrastructure plan.

 

Project 1: Grid-scale battery storage

The federal government is investing $16.5 million in Yukon Energy’s construction of a new battery storage system in Yukon. Once completed, the 8 MW battery will be the largest grid-connected battery in the North, and one of the largest in Canada, alongside major Ontario battery projects underway.

The new battery is a critical investment in Yukon Energy’s ability to meet growing demands for power and securing Yukon’s energy future. As an isolated grid, one of the largest challenges Yukon Energy faces is meeting peak demands for power during winter months, as electrification grows with EV adoption in the N.W.T. and beyond.

When complete, the new system will store excess electricity generated during off-peak periods, complementing emerging vehicle-to-grid integration approaches, and provide Yukoners with access to more power during peak periods. This new energy storage system will create a more reliable power supply and help reduce the territory’s reliance on diesel fuel. Over the 20-year life of project, the new battery is expected to reduce carbon emissions in Yukon by more than 20,000 tonnes.

A location for the new battery energy storage system has not been identified. Yukon Energy will begin permitting of the project in 2020 with construction targeted to be complete by mid-2023.

 

Project 2: Replacing and upgrading the Mayo to McQuesten Transmission Line

Yukon Energy has received $22.7 million in federal funding to proceed with Stage 1 of the Stewart to Keno City Transmission Project – replacing and upgrading the 65 year-old transmission line between Mayo and McQuesten. The project also includes the addition of system protection equipment at the Stewart Crossing South substation. The Yukon government, through the Yukon Development Corporation, has already provided $3.5 million towards planning for the project.

Replacing the Mayo to McQuesten transmission line is critical to Yukon Energy’s ability to deliver safe and reliable electricity to customers in the Mayo and Keno regions, mirroring broader regional transmission initiatives that enhance grid resilience, and to support economic growth in Yukon. The transmission line has reached end-of-life and become increasingly unreliable for customers in the area.

The First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun has expressed their support of this project. The project has also been approved by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board.

Yukon Energy will begin replacing and upgrading the 31 km transmission line between Mayo and McQuesten in 2020. Construction is expected to be complete in late 2020. When finished, the new 138 kV transmission line will provide more reliable electricity to customers in the Mayo and Keno regions and be equipped to support industrial growth and development in the area, including the Victoria Gold Mine, with renewable power from the Yukon grid.

Planning work for the remainder of the Stewart to Keno City Transmission Project has been completed. Yukon Energy continues to explore funding opportunities that are needed to proceed with other stages of the project.

 

Related News

View more

If B.C. wants to electrify all road vehicles by 2055, it will need to at least double its power output: study

B.C. EV Electrification 2055 projects grid capacity needs doubling to 37 GW, driven by electric vehicles, renewable energy expansion, wind and solar generation, limited natural gas, and policy mandates for zero-emission transportation.

 

Key Points

A projection that electrifying all B.C. road transport by 2055 would more than double grid demand to 37 GW.

✅ Site C adds 1.1 GW; rest from wind, solar, limited natural gas.

✅ Electricity price per kWh rises 9%, but fuel savings offset.

✅ Significant GHG cuts with 93% renewable grid under Clean Energy Act.

 

Researchers at the University of Victoria say that if B.C. were to shift to electric power for all road vehicles by 2055, the province would require more than double the electricity now being generated.

The findings are included in a study to be published in the November issue of the Applied Energy journal.

According to co-author and UVic professor Curran Crawford, the team at the university's Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions took B.C.'s 2015 electrical capacity of 15.6 gigawatts as a baseline, and added projected demands from population and economic growth, then added the increase that shifting to electric vehicles would require, while acknowledging power supply challenges that could arise.

They calculated the demand in 2055 would amount to 37 gigawatts, more than double 15.6 gigawatts used in 2015 as a baseline, and utilities warn of a potential EV charging bottleneck if demand ramps up faster than infrastructure.

"We wanted to understand what the electricity requirements are if you want to do that," he said. "It's possible — it would take some policy direction."

B.C. announces $4M in rebates for home and work EV charging stations across the province
The team took the planned Site C dam project into account, but that would only add 1.1 gigawatts of power. So assuming no other hydroelectric dams are planned, the remainder would likely have to come from wind and solar projects and some natural gas.

"Geothermal and biomass were also in the model," said Crawford, adding that they are more expensive electricity sources. "The model we were using, essentially, we're looking for the cheapest options."
Wind turbines on the Tantramar Marsh between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick tower over the Trans-Canada Highway. If British Columbia were to shift to 100 per cent electric-powered ground transportation by 2055, the province would have to significantly increase its wind and solar power generation. (Eric Woolliscroft/CBC)
The electricity bill, per kilowatt hour, would increase by nine per cent, according to the team's research, but Crawford said getting rid of the gasoline and diesel now used to fuel vehicles could amount to an overall cost saving, especially when combined with zero-emission vehicle incentives available to consumers.

The province introduced a law this year requiring that all new light-duty vehicles sold in B.C. be zero emission by 2040, while the federal 2035 EV mandate adds another policy signal, so the researchers figured 2055 was a reasonable date to imagine all vehicles on the road to be electric.

Crawford said hydrogen-powered vehicles weren't considered in the study, as the model used was already complicated enough, but hydrogen fuel would actually require more electricity for the electrolysis, when compared to energy stored in batteries.

Electric vehicles are approaching a tipping point as faster charging becomes more available — here's why
The study also found that shifting to all-electric ground transportation in B.C. would also mean a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, assuming the Clean Energy Act remains in place, which mandates that 93 per cent of grid electricity must come from renewable resources, whereas nationally, about 18 per cent of electricity still comes from fossil fuels, according to 2019 data. 

"Doing the electrification makes some sense — If you're thinking of spending some money to reduce carbon emissions, this is a pretty cost effective way of doing that," said Crawford.

 

Related News

View more

Britain breaks record for coal-free power generation - but what does this mean for your energy bills?

UK Coal-Free Electricity Record highlights rapid growth in renewables as National Grid phases out coal; wind, solar, and offshore projects surge, green tariffs expand, and energy comparison helps consumers switch to cheaper, cleaner deals.

 

Key Points

Britain's longest coal-free run, enabled by renewables, lower demand, and grid shifts for cheaper, greener tariffs.

✅ Record set after two months without coal-fired generation

✅ Renewables outpace fossil fuels; wind and solar dominate

✅ Green tariffs expand; prices at three-year lows

 

On Wednesday 10 June, Britain hit a significant landmark: the UK went for two full months without burning coal to generate power – that's the longest period since the 1880s, following earlier milestones such as a full week without coal power in the recent past.

According to the National Grid, Britain has now run its electricity network without burning coal since midnight on the 9 April. This coal-free period has beaten the country’s previous record of 18 days, six hours and 10 minutes, which was set in June 2019, even though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to analyses.

With such a shift in Britain’s drive for renewables and lower electricity demand following the coronavirus lockdown, as Britain recorded its cleanest electricity during lockdown to date, now may be the perfect time to do an online energy comparison and switch to a cheaper, greener deal.

Only a decade ago, around 40 per cent of Britain’s electricity came from coal generation, but since then the country has gradually shifted towards renewable energy, with the coal share at record lows in the system today. When Britain was forced into lockdown in response to the coronavirus pandemic, electricity demand dropped sharply, and the National Grid took the four remaining coal-fired plants off the network.

Over the past 10 years, Britain has invested heavily in renewable energy. Back in 2010, only 3 per cent of the country's electricity came from wind and solar, and many people remained sceptical. However, now, the UK has the biggest offshore wind industry in the world. Plus, last year, construction of the world’s single largest wind farm was completed off the coast of Yorkshire.

At the same time, Drax – Britain’s biggest power plant – has started to switch from burning coal to burning compressed wooden pellets instead, reflecting the UK's progress as it keeps breaking its coal-free energy record again across the grid. By this time next year, the plant hopes to have phased out coal entirely.

So far this year, renewables have generated more power than all fossil fuels put together, the BBC reports, and the energy dashboard shows the current mix in real time. Renewables have been responsible for 37 per cent of electricity supplied to the network, with wind and solar surpassing nuclear for the first time, while fossil fuels have accounted for 35 per cent. During the same period, nuclear accounted for 18 per cent and imports made up the remaining 10 per cent.

What does this mean for consumers?

As the country’s electricity supply moves more towards renewables, customers have more choice than ever before. Most of the ‘Big Six’ energy companies now have tariffs that offer 100 per cent green electricity. On top of this, specialist green energy suppliers such as Bulb, Octopus and Green Energy UK make it easier than ever to find a green energy tariff.

The good news is that our energy comparison research suggests that green energy doesn’t have to cost you more than a traditional fixed-price energy contract would. In fact, some of the cheapest energy suppliers are actually green companies.

At present, energy bills are at three-year lows, which means that now is the perfect time to switch supplier. As prices remain low and renewables begin to dominate the marketplace, more switchers will be drawn to green energy deals than ever before.

However, if you’re interested in choosing a green energy supplier, make sure that you look at the company's fuel mix. This way, you’ll be able to see whether they are guaranteeing the usage of green energy, or whether they’re just offsetting your usage. All suppliers must report how their energy is generated to Ofgem, so you’ll easily be able to compare providers.

You may find that you pay more for a supplier that generates its own energy from renewables, or pay less if the supplier simply matches your usage by buying green energy. You can decide which option is right for you after comparing the prices.

 

Related News

View more

India's Solar Growth Slows with Surge in Coal Generation

India Solar Slowdown and Coal Surge highlights policy uncertainty, grid stability concerns, financing gaps, and land acquisition issues affecting renewable energy, emissions targets, energy security, storage deployment, and tendering delays across the solar value chain.

 

Key Points

Analysis of slowed solar growth and rising coal in India, examining policy, grid, finance, and emissions tradeoffs.

✅ Policy uncertainty and tender delays stall solar pipelines

✅ Grid bottlenecks, storage gaps, and curtailment risks persist

✅ Financing strains and DISCOM payment delays dampen investment

 

India, a global leader in renewable energy adoption where renewables surpassed coal in capacity recently, faces a pivotal moment as the growth of solar power output decelerates while coal generation sees an unexpected surge. This article examines the factors contributing to this shift, its implications for India's energy transition, and the challenges and opportunities it presents.

India's Renewable Energy Ambitions

India has set ambitious targets to expand its renewable energy capacity, including a goal to achieve 175 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy by 2022, with a significant portion from solar power. Solar energy has been a focal point of India's renewable energy strategy, as documented in on-grid solar development studies, driven by falling costs, technological advancements, and environmental imperatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Factors Contributing to Slowdown in Solar Power Growth

Despite initial momentum, India's solar power growth has encountered several challenges that have contributed to a slowdown. These include policy uncertainties, regulatory hurdles, land acquisition issues, and financial constraints affecting project development and implementation, even as China's solar PV growth surged in recent years. Delays in tendering processes, grid connectivity issues, and payment delays from utilities have also hindered the expansion of solar capacity.

Surge in Coal Generation

Concurrently, India has witnessed an unexpected increase in coal generation in recent years. Coal continues to dominate India's energy mix, accounting for a significant portion of electricity generation due to its reliability, affordability, and existing infrastructure, even as wind and solar surpassed coal in the U.S. in recent periods. The surge in coal generation reflects the challenges in scaling up renewable energy quickly enough to meet growing energy demand and address grid stability concerns.

Implications for India's Energy Transition

The slowdown in solar power growth and the rise in coal generation pose significant implications for India's energy transition and climate goals. While renewable energy remains central to India's long-term energy strategy, and as global renewables top 30% of electricity generation worldwide, the persistence of coal-fired power plants complicates efforts to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change impacts. Balancing economic development, energy security, and environmental sustainability remains a complex challenge for policymakers.

Challenges and Opportunities

Addressing the challenges facing India's solar sector requires concerted efforts to streamline regulatory processes, improve grid infrastructure, and enhance financial mechanisms to attract investment. Encouraging greater private sector participation, promoting technology innovation, and expanding renewable energy storage capacity are essential to overcoming barriers and accelerating solar power deployment, as wind and solar have doubled their global share in recent years, demonstrating the pace possible.

Policy and Regulatory Framework

India's government plays a crucial role in fostering a conducive policy and regulatory framework to support renewable energy growth and phase out coal dependence, particularly as renewable power is set to shatter records worldwide. This includes implementing renewable energy targets, providing incentives for solar and other clean energy technologies, and addressing systemic barriers that hinder renewable energy adoption.

Path Forward

To accelerate India's energy transition and achieve its renewable energy targets, stakeholders must prioritize integrated energy planning, grid modernization, and sustainable development practices. Investing in renewable energy infrastructure, promoting energy efficiency measures, and fostering international collaboration on technology transfer and capacity building are key to unlocking India's renewable energy potential.

Conclusion

India stands at a crossroads in its energy transition journey, balancing the need to expand renewable energy capacity while managing the challenges associated with coal dependence. By addressing regulatory barriers, enhancing grid reliability, and promoting sustainable energy practices, India can navigate towards a more diversified and resilient energy future. Embracing innovation, strengthening policy frameworks, and fostering public-private partnerships will be essential in realizing India's vision of a cleaner, more sustainable energy landscape for generations to come.

 

Related News

View more

Western Canada drought impacting hydropower production as reservoirs run low

Western Canada Hydropower Drought strains British Columbia and Manitoba as reservoirs hit historic lows, cutting hydroelectric output and prompting power imports, natural gas peaking, and grid resilience planning amid climate change risks this winter.

 

Key Points

Climate-driven reservoir lows cut hydro in B.C. and Manitoba, prompting imports and backup gas to maintain reliability.

✅ Reservoirs at multi-year lows cut hydro generation capacity

✅ BC Hydro and Manitoba Hydro import electricity for reliability

✅ Natural gas turbines used; climate change elevates drought risk

 

Severe drought conditions in Western Canada are compelling two hydroelectricity-dependent provinces, British Columbia and Manitoba, to import power from other regions. These provinces, known for their reliance on hydroelectric power, are facing reduced electricity production due to low water levels in reservoirs this autumn and winter as energy-intensive customers encounter temporary connection limits.

While there is no immediate threat of power outages in either province, experts indicate that climate change is leading to more frequent and severe droughts. This trend places increasing pressure on hydroelectric power producers in the future, spurring interest in upgrading existing dams as part of adaptation strategies.

In British Columbia, several regions are experiencing "extreme" drought conditions as classified by the federal government. BC Hydro spokesperson Kyle Donaldson referred to these conditions as "historic," and a first call for power highlights the strain, noting that the corporation's large reservoirs in the north and southeast are at their lowest levels in many years.

To mitigate this, BC Hydro has been conserving water by utilizing less affected reservoirs and importing additional power from Alberta and various western U.S. states. Donaldson confirmed that these measures would persist in the upcoming months.

Manitoba is also facing challenges with below-normal levels in reservoirs and rivers. Since October, Manitoba Hydro has occasionally relied on its natural gas turbines to supplement hydroelectric production as electrical demand could double over the next two decades, a measure usually reserved for peak winter demand.

Bruce Owen, a spokesperson for Manitoba Hydro, reassured that there is no imminent risk of a power shortage. The corporation can import electricity from other regions, similar to how it exports clean energy in high-water years.

However, the cost implications are significant. Manitoba Hydro anticipates a financial loss for the current fiscal year, with more red ink tied to emerging generation needs, the second in a decade, with the previous one in 2021. That year, drought conditions led to a significant reduction in the company's power production capabilities, resulting in a $248-million loss.

The 2021 drought also affected hydropower production in the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy reported a 16% reduction in overall generation, with notable decreases at major facilities like Nevada's Hoover Dam, where production dropped by 25%.

Drought has long been a major concern for hydroelectricity producers, and they plan their operations with this risk in mind. Manitoba's record drought in 1940-41, for example, is a benchmark for Manitoba Hydro's operational planning to ensure sufficient electricity supply even in extreme low-water conditions.

Climate change, however, is increasing the frequency of such rare events, highlighting the need for more robust backup systems such as new turbine investments to enhance reliability. Blake Shaffer, an associate professor of economics at the University of Calgary specializing in electricity markets, emphasized the importance of hydroelectric systems incorporating the worsening drought forecasts due to climate change into their energy production planning.

 

Related News

View more

Quebec authorizes nearly 1,000 megawatts of electricity for 11 industrial projects

Quebec Large-Scale Power Connections allocate 956 MW via Hydro-Québec to battery, bioenergy, and green hydrogen projects, including Northvolt and data centers, advancing grid capacity, industrial electrification, and Quebec's energy transition.

 

Key Points

Allocations of 956 MW via Hydro-Québec to projects in batteries, bioenergy, and green hydrogen across Quebec.

✅ 11 projects approved, totaling 956 MW across Quebec

✅ Focus: batteries, bioenergy, green hydrogen, data centers

✅ Selection weighed grid impact, economics, environmental criteria

 

The Quebec government has unveiled the list of 11 companies whose projects were given the go-ahead for large-scale power connections of 5 megawatts or more, for a total of 956 MW, even as planned exports to New York continue to factor into supply.

Five of the selected projects relate to the battery sector, reflecting EV battery investments by Canada and Quebec, and two to the bioenergy sector.

TES Canada's plan to build a green hydrogen production plant in Shawinigan, announced on Friday, is on the list.

Hydro-Québec will also supply 5 MW or more to the future Northvolt battery plant at its facilities in Saint-Basile-le-Grand and McMasterville.

Other industrial projects selected are those of Air Liquide Canada, Ford-Ecopro CAM Canada S.E.C, Nouveau monde Graphite and Volta Energy Solutions Canada.

Bioenergy projects include Greenfield Global Québec, in Varennes, and WM Québec, in Sainte-Sophie.

There's also Duravit Canada's manufacturing project in Matane, Quebec Iron Ore's green steel project in Fermont, Côte-Nord, and Vantage Data Centers CanadaQC4's data center project in Pointe-Claire.

All projects were selected las August "according to defined analysis criteria, such as technical connection capacities and impact on the Quebec power grid operations, economic and regional development spinoffs, environmental and social impact, as well as consistency with government orientations," states the press release from the office of Pierre Fitzgibbon, Quebec's Economy, Innovation and Energy Minister.

"With energy balances tightening and the electrification of our economy on the rise, we need to choose the most promising projects and allocate available electricity wisely," said Fitzgibbon.

Cross-border capacity expansions, including the Maine transmission corridor now approved, are also shaping regional power flows.

"These 11 projects will accelerate the energy transition, while creating significant economic spinoffs throughout Quebec."

The government is continuing its analysis of other energy-intensive industrial projects to help make the transition to a greener economy, even as experts question Quebec's EV strategy in policy circles, until March 31.

 

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

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified