Utility will pay you for power

Renewable Energy Economic Recovery drives GDP gains, job growth, and climate targets by accelerating clean energy investment, green hydrogen, and grid modernization, delivering high ROI and a resilient, low-carbon transition through stimulus and policy alignment.

Key Points

A strategy to boost GDP and jobs by accelerating clean power and green hydrogen while meeting climate goals.

✅ Adds $98tn to global GDP by 2050; $3-$8 return per $1 invested

✅ Quadruples clean energy jobs to 42m; improves health and welfare

✅ Cuts CO2 70% by 2050; enables net-zero via green hydrogen

Renewable energy could power an economic recovery from Covid-19 through a green recovery that spurs global GDP gains of almost $100tn (£80tn) between now and 2050, according to a report.

The International Renewable Energy Agency’s new IRENA report found that accelerating investment in renewable energy could generate huge economic benefits while helping to tackle the global climate emergency.

The agency’s director general, Francesco La Camera, said the global crisis ignited by the coronavirus outbreak exposed “the deep vulnerabilities of the current system” and urged governments to invest in renewable energy to kickstart economic growth and help meet climate targets.

The agency’s landmark report found that accelerating investment in renewable energy would help tackle the climate crisis and would in effect pay for itself.

Investing in renewable energy would deliver global GDP gains of $98tn above a business-as-usual scenario by 2050, as clean energy investment significantly outpaces fossil fuels, by returning between $3 and $8 on every dollar invested.

It would also quadruple the number of jobs in the sector to 42m over the next 30 years, and measurably improve global health and welfare scores, according to the report.

“Governments are facing a difficult task of bringing the health emergency under control while introducing major stimulus and recovery measures, as a US power coalition demands action,” La Camera said. “By accelerating renewables and making the energy transition an integral part of the wider recovery, governments can achieve multiple economic and social objectives in the pursuit of a resilient future that leaves nobody behind.”

The report also found that renewable energy could curb the rise in global temperatures by helping to reduce the energy industry’s carbon dioxide emissions by 70% by 2050 by replacing fossil fuels, with measures like a fossil fuel lockdown hastening the shift.

Renewables could play a greater role in cutting carbon emissions from heavy industry and transport to reach virtually zero emissions by 2050, particularly by investing in green hydrogen.

The clean-burning fuel, which can replace the fossil fuel gas in steel and cement making, could be made by using vast amounts of clean electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen elements.

Andrew Steer, chief executive of the World Resources Institute, said: “As the world looks to recover from the current health and economic crises, we face a choice: we can pursue a modern, clean, healthy energy system, or we can go back to the old, polluting ways of doing business. We must choose the former.”

The call for a green economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis comes after a warning from Dr Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, that government policies must be put in place to avoid an investment hiatus in the energy transition, even as the solar and wind industry faces Covid-19 disruptions.

“We should not allow today’s crisis to compromise the clean energy transition, even as wind power growth persists despite Covid-19,” he said. “We have an important window of opportunity.”

Ignacio Galán, the chairman and CEO of the Spanish renewables giant Iberdrola, which owns Scottish Power, said the company would continue to invest billions in renewable energy as well as electricity networks and batteries to help integrate clean energy in the electricity.

“A green recovery is essential as we emerge from the Covid-19 crisis. The world will benefit economically, environmentally and socially by focusing on clean energy,” he said. “Aligning economic stimulus and policy packages with climate goals is crucial for a long-term viable and healthy economy.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Electricity Export Retaliation signals tariff-fueled trade tensions as Doug Ford leverages cross-border energy flows to the U.S., risking grid reliability, higher power prices, and escalating a Canada-U.S. trade war over protectionist policies.

Key Points

A policy threat by Ontario to cut power exports to U.S. states in response to tariffs, leveraging grid dependence.

✅ Powers about 1.5M U.S. homes in NY, MI, and MN

✅ Risks price spikes, shortages, and legal challenges

✅ Part of Canada's CAD 30B retaliatory tariff package

In a move that underscores the escalating trade tensions between Canada and the United States, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has threatened to halt electricity exports to U.S. states in retaliation for the Trump administration's recent tariffs. This bold stance highlights Ontario's significant role in powering regions across the U.S. and serves as a warning about the potential consequences of trade disputes.

The Leverage of Ontario's Electricity

Ontario's electricity exports are not merely supplementary; they are essential to the energy supply of several U.S. states. The province provides power to approximately 1.5 million homes in states such as New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, even as it eyes energy independence through domestic initiatives. This substantial export positions Ontario as a key player in the regional energy market, giving the province considerable leverage in trade negotiations.

Premier Ford's Ultimatum

Responding to the Trump administration's imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian imports, Premier Ford, following a Washington meeting, declared, "If they want to play tough, we can play tough." He further emphasized his readiness to act, stating, "I’ll cut them off with a smile on my face." This rhetoric underscores Ontario's willingness to use its energy exports as a bargaining chip in the trade dispute.

Economic and Political Ramifications

The potential cessation of electricity exports to the U.S. would have profound economic implications. U.S. states that rely on Ontario's power could face energy shortages, leading to increased prices, particularly New York energy prices, and potential disruptions. Such an action would not only strain the energy supply but also escalate political tensions, potentially affecting other areas of bilateral cooperation.

Canada's Retaliatory Measures

Ontario's threat is part of a broader Canadian strategy to counteract U.S. tariffs. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods worth approximately CAD 30 billion, targeting products such as food, textiles, and furniture. These measures aim to pressure the U.S. administration into reconsidering its trade policies.

The Risk of Escalation

While leveraging energy exports provides Ontario with a potent tool, it also carries significant risks, as experts warn against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid tariff tensions. Such actions could lead to a full-blown trade war, with both countries imposing tariffs and export restrictions. The resulting economic fallout could affect various sectors, from manufacturing to agriculture, and lead to job losses and increased consumer prices.

International Trade Relations

The dispute also raises questions about the stability of international trade agreements and the rules governing cross-border energy transactions. Both Canada and the U.S. are signatories to various trade agreements that promote the free flow of goods and services, including energy. Actions like export bans could violate these agreements and lead to legal challenges.

Public Sentiment and Nationalism

The trade tensions have sparked a surge in Canadian nationalism, with public sentiment largely supporting tariffs on energy and minerals as retaliatory measures. This sentiment is evident in actions such as boycotting American products and expressing discontent at public events. However, while national pride is a unifying force, it does not mitigate the potential economic hardships that may result from prolonged trade disputes.

The Path Forward

Navigating this complex situation requires careful diplomacy and negotiation. Both Canada and the U.S. must weigh the benefits of trade against the potential costs of escalating tensions. Engaging in dialogue, seeking compromise, and adhering to international trade laws are essential steps to prevent further deterioration of relations and to ensure the stability of both economies.

Ontario's threat to cut off electricity exports to the U.S. serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of global trade and the potential consequences of protectionist policies. While such measures can be effective in drawing attention to grievances, they also risk significant economic and political fallout. As the situation develops, it will be crucial to monitor the responses of both governments and the impact on industries and consumers alike, including growing support for Canadian energy projects among stakeholders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E Drum Fire Cause identified as a power line failure in Santa Barbara County, with arcing electricity igniting vegetation near Buellton on Drum Canyon Road; 696 acres burned as investigators and CPUC review PG&E safety.

Key Points

A failed PG&E power line sparked the 696-acre Drum Fire near Buellton; the utility is conducting its own probe.

✅ Power line failed between poles, arcing ignited vegetation.

✅ 696 acres burned; no structures damaged or injuries.

✅ PG&E filed CPUC incident report; ongoing investigation.

A downed Pacific Gas and Electric Co. power line was the cause of the Drum fire that broke out June 14 on Drum Canyon Road northwest of Buellton, a reminder that a transformer explosion can also spark multiple fires, the Santa Barbara County Fire Department announced Thursday.

The fire broke out about 12:50 p.m. north of Highway 246 and burned about 696 acres of wildland before firefighters brought it under control, although no structures were damaged or mass outages like the Los Angeles power outage occurred, according to an incident summary.

A team of investigators pinpointed the official cause as a power line that failed between two utility poles and fell to the ground, and as downed line safety tips emphasize, arcing electricity ignited the surrounding vegetation, said County Fire Department spokesman Capt. Daniel Bertucelli.

In response, a PG&E spokesman said the utility is conducting its own investigation and does not have access to whatever data investigators used, and, as the ATCO regulatory penalty illustrates, such matters can draw significant oversight, but he noted the company filed an electric incident report on the wire with the California Public Utilities Commission on June 14.

"We are grateful to the first responders who fought the 2020 Drum fire in Santa Barbara County and helped make sure that there were no injuries or fatalities, outcomes not always seen in copper theft incidents, and no reports of structures damaged or burned," PG&E spokesman Mark Mesesan said.

"While we are continuing to conduct our own investigation into the events that led to the Drum fire, and as the Site C watchdog inquiry shows, oversight bodies can seek more transparency, PG&E does not have access to the Santa Barbara County Fire Department's report."

He said PG&E remains focused on reducing wildfire risk across its service area while limiting the scope and duration of public safety power shutoffs, including strategies like line-burying decisions adopted by other utilities, and that the safety of customers and communities it serves are its most important responsibility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Bitcoin energy consumption is driven by mining electricity demand, with TWh-scale power use, carbon footprint concerns, and Cambridge estimates. Rising prices incentivize more hardware; efficiency gains and renewables adoption shape sustainability outcomes.

Key Points

Bitcoin energy consumption is mining's electricity use, driven by price, device efficiency, and energy mix.

✅ Cambridge tool estimates ~121 TWh annual usage

✅ Rising BTC price incentivizes more mining hardware

✅ Efficiency, renewables, and costs shape footprint

"Mining" for the cryptocurrency is power-hungry, with power curtailments reported during heat waves, involving heavy computer calculations to verify transactions.

Cambridge researchers say it consumes around 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year - and is unlikely to fall unless the value of the currency slumps, even as Americans use less electricity overall.

Critics say electric-car firm Tesla's decision to invest heavily in Bitcoin undermines its environmental image.

The currency's value hit a record $48,000 (£34,820) this week. following Tesla's announcement that it had bought about $1.5bn bitcoin and planned to accept it as payment in future.

But the rising price offers even more incentive to Bitcoin miners to run more and more machines.

And as the price increases, so does the energy consumption, according to Michel Rauchs, researcher at The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, who co-created the online tool that generates these estimates.

“It is really by design that Bitcoin consumes that much electricity,” Mr Rauchs told BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “This is not something that will change in the future unless the Bitcoin price is going to significantly go down."

The online tool has ranked Bitcoin’s electricity consumption above Argentina (121 TWh), the Netherlands (108.8 TWh) and the United Arab Emirates (113.20 TWh) - and it is gradually creeping up on Norway (122.20 TWh).

The energy it uses could power all kettles used in the UK, where low-carbon generation stalled in 2019, for 27 years, it said.

However, it also suggests the amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the US alone could power the entire Bitcoin network for a year, and in Canada, B.C. power imports have helped meet demand.

Mining Bitcoin
In order to "mine" Bitcoin, computers - often specialised ones - are connected to the cryptocurrency network.

They have the job of verifying transactions made by people who send or receive Bitcoin.

This process involves solving puzzles, which, while not integral to verifying movements of the currency, provide a hurdle to ensure no-one fraudulently edits the global record of all transactions.

As a reward, miners occasionally receive small amounts of Bitcoin in what is often likened to a lottery.

To increase profits, people often connect large numbers of miners to the network - even entire warehouses full of them, as seen with a Medicine Hat bitcoin operation backed by an electricity deal.

That uses lots of electricity because the computers are more or less constantly working to complete the puzzles, prompting some utilities to consider pauses on new crypto loads in certain regions.

The University of Cambridge tool models the economic lifetime of the world's Bitcoin miners and assumes that all the Bitcoin mining machines worldwide are working with various efficiencies.

Using an average electricity price per kilowatt hour ($0.05) and the energy demands of the Bitcoin network, it is then possible to estimate how much electricity is being consumed at any one time, though in places like China's power sector data can be opaque.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Electricity Prices are surging across PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E territories, driven by fixed grid costs, wildfire mitigation, CARE subsidies, and Net Energy Metering, burdening low-income renters and increasing statewide utility debt, CPUC reports show.

Key Points

High rates driven by fixed grid costs and policies, burdening low-income customers across PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E.

✅ Fixed costs: transmission, distribution, wildfire mitigation

✅ Solar NEM shifts grid costs onto remaining ratepayers

✅ CPUC, CARE, LIHEAP aim to relieve rising utility debt

California's electricity prices are among the highest in the country, new research says, and those costs are falling disproportionately on a customer base that's already struggling to pay their bills.

PG&E customers pay about 80 percent more per kilowatt-hour than the national average, according to a study by the energy institute at UC Berkeley's Haas Business School with the nonprofit think tank Next 10. The study analyzed the rates of the state's three largest investor-owned utilities and found that Southern California Edison charged 45 percent more than the national average, while San Diego Gas & Electric charged double. Even low-income residents enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program paid more than the average American.

"California's retail prices are out of line with utilities across the country," said UC Berkeley assistant professor and study co-author Meredith Fowlie, citing Hawaii and some New England states among the outliers with even higher rates. "And they're increasing, as regulators face calls for action across the state."

So why are prices so high?
One reason is that California's size and geography inflate the "fixed" costs of operating its electric system, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid in parallel, which include maintenance, generation, transmission, and distribution as well as public programs like CARE and wildfire mitigation, according to the study. Those costs don't change based on how much electricity residents consume, yet between 66 and 77 percent of Californians' electricity bills are used to offset the costs of those programs, the study found.

These are legitimate expenses, Fowlie said. However, because lower-income residents use only moderately less electricity than higher income households, they end up with a disproportionate share of the burden, according to the study. And while the bills of older, wealthier Californians continue to decrease as they adopt cost-efficient alternatives like the state's Net Energy Metering solar program and the resulting solar power cost shift dynamic, costs will keep rising for a shrinking customer base composed mostly of low- and middle-income renters who still use electricity as their main energy source.

"When households adopt solar, they're not paying their fair share," Fowlie said. While solar users generate power that decreases their bills, they still rely on the state's electric grid for much of their power consumption - without paying for its fixed costs like others do.

"As this continues it's going to make electricity even more unaffordable," said F. Noel Perry, founder of Next 10, which funds nonpartisan research on the economy and environment.

PG&E this month raised its electricity rates 3.7 percent, amounting to a $5.01 a month increase for the average residential customer, who now pays $138.85 a month for electricity. It was the second increase this year, as regulators consider major changes to electric bills statewide, said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, who noted that higher rates are particularly difficult for those who have lost their jobs in the pandemic. The California Public Utilities Commission last year approved a PG&E plan for more incremental increases through Dec. 31, 2022.

PG&E spokesperson Kristi Jourdan said in an email statement that the company was committed to keeping prices as low as possible as the state weighs income-based flat-fee utility bills proposals, and that although some programs are meant to be subsidized through rates, "in other cases, given that some customers have greater access to energy alternatives, the remaining customers - often those with limited means - are left paying unintended subsidies."

The costs quickly became overwhelming for Fretea Sylver, who rents a small house in Castro Valley and lost much of her work as the owner of a small woodwork business early in the pandemic. "They're little tiny changes but they accumulate. You turn around and you're like wait a second, why is my bill $20 more?," Sylver said. "And you have to pay it, no matter what."

Many more are unable to pay. Between February and December of last year, Californians accumulated more than $650 million in late payments from their utility providers, according to an analysis by the CPUC. In 2019, utility debt fell $71,646,869 from the prior year.

Sylver, who was on unemployment for 10 months last year, accumulated over $600 in unpaid PG&E bills. "We sort of went into a bit of debt, having to use credit cards and loans to sustain what we had to pay for. We're trying to catch up," Sylver said. The family received some help from the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides up to $1,000 to those who are late on their utility bills.

The study identified improvements to make California's power grid more equitable, such as income-based fixed electricity charges for the grid's cost that are based on income. Republican state senators this week called on the state to use federal relief money to forgive the billions Californians owe in utility debt, even as some lawmakers move to overturn income-based utility charges amid ongoing debate. Californians are currently protected by a statewide moratorium on disconnection for nonpayment of electricity bills through June 30. The CPUC this month began taking public input on the issue of how to grant some relief to those who have fallen behind on their utility bills.

This article is part of the California Divide, a collaboration among newsrooms examining income inequality and economic survival in California.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News