OEB Invites Input on Stray Voltage

Ontario Electricity Demand Drop During COVID-19 reflects a 1,000-2,000 MW decline as IESO balances the grid, shifts peak demand later, throttles generators and baseload nuclear, and manages exports amid changing load curves.

Key Points

An about 10% reduction in Ontario's load, shifting peaks and requiring IESO grid balancing measures.

✅ Demand down 1,000-2,000 MW; roughly 10% below normal.

✅ Peak shifts later in morning as home use rises.

✅ IESO throttles generators; baseload nuclear stays online.

It’s as if the COVID-19 epidemic had tripped a circuit breaker, shutting off all power to a city the size of Ottawa.

Virus-induced restrictions that have shut down large swaths of normal commercial life across Canada has led to a noticeable drop in demand for power in Ontario and reflect a global demand dip according to reports, insiders said on Friday.

Terry Young, vice-president with the Independent Electricity System Operator, said planning was underway for further declines in usage and for whether Ontario will embrace more clean power in the long term, given the delicate balance that needs to be maintained between supply and demand.

“We’re now seeing demand that is running about 1,000 to 2,000 megawatts less than we would normally see,” Young said. “You’re essentially seeing a city the size of Ottawa drop off demand during the day.”

At the high end, a 2,000 megawatt reduction would be close to the equivalent peak demand of Ottawa and London, Ont., combined.

The decline, in the order of 10 per cent from the 17,000 to 18,000 megawatts of usage that might normally be expected and similar to the UK’s 10% drop reported during lockdowns, began last week, Young said. The downward trend became more noticeable as governments and health authorities ordered non-essential businesses to close and people to stay home. However, residential and hospital usage has climbed.

Experts say frequent hand-washing and staying away from others is the most effective way to curb the spread of the highly contagious coronavirus, which poses a special risk to older people and those with underlying health conditions. As a result, factories and other big users have reduced production or closed entirely.

Because electricity cannot be stored, generators need to throttle back their output as domestic demand shrinks and exports to places such as the United States, including New York City, which is also being hit hard by the coronavirus, fall.

“We’re watching this carefully,” Young said. “We’re able to manage this drop, but it’s something we obviously have to keep watching…and making sure we’re not over-generating electricity.”

Turning off generation, especially for nuclear plants, is an intensive process, as are restarts and would likely happen only if the downward demand trend intensifies significantly, amid concerns over Ontario’s electricity getting dirtier if baseload is displaced. However, one of North America’s largest generators, Bruce Power near Kincardine, Ont., said it had a large degree of flexibility to scale down or up.

“We have the ability to provide one-third of our output as a dynamic response, which is unique to our facility,” said James Scongack, an executive vice-president with Bruce Power. “We developed this coming out of the 2008 downturn and it’s been a critical system asset for the last decade.”

“We don’t see there being a scenario where our baseload will not be needed,” he said, even as some warn Ontario may be short of electricity in the coming years.

The province’s publicly owned Ontario Power Generation said it was also in conversations with the system operator, which provides direction to generators, and is often cited in the Ontario election discussion.

One clear shift in normal work-day usage with so many people staying at home has been the change in demand patterns. Typically, Young said, there’s a peak from about 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. as people wake and get ready to go to work or school. The peak is now occurring later in the morning, Young said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Global Coal Power Decline 2019 signals a record fall in coal-fired electricity as China plateaus, India dips, and the EU and US accelerate renewables, curbing carbon emissions and advancing the global energy transition.

Key Points

A record 2019 drop in global coal power as renewables rise and demand slows across China, India, the EU, and the US.

✅ 3% global fall in coal-fired electricity in 2019.

✅ China plateaus; India declines for first time in decades.

✅ EU and US shift to renewables and gas, cutting emissions.

The world’s use of coal-fired electricity is on track for its biggest annual fall on record this year after more than four decades of near-uninterrupted growth that has stoked the global climate crisis.

Data shows that coal-fired electricity is expected to fall by 3% in 2019, or more than the combined coal generation in Germany, Spain and the UK last year and could help stall the world’s rising carbon emissions this year.

The steepest global slump on record is likely to emerge in 2019 as India’s reliance on coal power falls for the first time in at least three decades this year, and China’s coal power demand plateaus, reflecting the broader global energy transition underway.

Both developing nations are using less coal-fired electricity due to slowing economic growth in Asia as well as the rise of cleaner energy alternatives. There is also expected to be unprecedented coal declines across the EU and the US as developed economies turn to clean forms of energy such as low-cost solar power to replace ageing coal plants.

In almost 40 years the world’s annual coal generation has fallen only twice before: in 2009, in the wake of the global financial crisis, and in 2015, following a slowdown in China’s coal plants amid rising levels of deadly air pollution.

The research was undertaken by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air , the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and the UK climate thinktank Sandbag.

The researchers found that China’s coal-fired power generation was flatlining, despite an increase in the number of coal plants being built, because they were running at record low rates. China builds the equivalent of one large new coal plant every two weeks, according to the report, but its coal plants run for only 48.6% of the time, compared with a global utilisation rate of 54% on average.

The findings come after a report from Global Energy Monitor found that the number of coal-fired power plants in the world is growing, because China is building new coal plants five times faster than the rest of the world is reducing their coal-fired power capacity.

The report found that in other countries coal-fired power capacity fell by 8GW in the 18 months to June but over the same period China increased its capacity by 42.9GW.

In a paper for the industry journal Carbon Brief, the researchers said: “A 3% reduction in power sector coal use could imply zero growth in global CO2 emissions, if emissions changes in other sectors mirror those during 2018.”

However, the authors of the report have warned that despite the record coal power slump the world’s use of coal remained far too high to meet the climate goals of the Paris agreement, and some countries are still seeing increases, such as Australia’s emissions rise amid increased pollution from electricity and transport.

The US – which is backing out of the Paris agreement – has made the deepest cuts to coal power of any developed country this year by shutting coal plants down in favour of gas power and renewable energy, with utilities such as Duke Energy facing investor pressure to disclose climate plans. By the end of August the US had reduced coal by almost 14% over the year compared with the same months in 2018.

The EU reported a record slump in coal-fired electricity use in the first half of the year of almost a fifth compared with the same months last year. This trend is expected to accelerate over the second half of the year to average a 23% fall over 2019 as a whole. The EU is using less coal power in favour of gas-fired electricity – which can have roughly half the carbon footprint of coal – and renewable energy, helped by policies such as the UK carbon tax that have slashed coal-fired generation.

We will not stay quiet on the escalating climate crisis and we recognise it as the defining issue of our lifetimes. The Guardian will give global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution the urgent attention they demand. Our independence means we can interrogate inaction by those in power. It means Guardian reporting will always be driven by scientific facts, never by commercial or political interests.

We believe that the problems we face on the climate crisis are systemic and that fundamental societal change is needed. We will keep reporting on the efforts of individuals and communities around the world who are fearlessly taking a stand for future generations and the preservation of human life on earth. We want their stories to inspire hope. We will also report back on our own progress as an organisation, as we take important steps to address our impact on the environment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

100% Clean Energy Targets drive renewable electricity, decarbonization, and cost savings through state policies, CCAs, RECs, and mandates, with timelines and interim goals that boost jobs, resilience, and public health across cities, counties, and utilities.

Key Points

Policies for cities and states to reach 100% clean power by set dates, using mandates, RECs, and interim goals.

✅ Define eligible clean vs renewable resources

✅ Mandate vs goal framework with enforcement

✅ Timelines with interim targets and escape clauses

“An enormous amount of authority still rests with the states for determining your energy future. So we can build these policies that will become a postcard from the future for the rest of the country,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission, speaking last week at a UCLA summit on state and local progress toward 100 percent clean energy.

According to a new report from the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 13 states, districts and territories, as well as more than 200 cities and counties, with standout clean energy purchases by Southeast cities helping drive momentum, have committed to a 100 percent clean electricity target — and dozens of cities have already hit it.

This means that one of every three Americans, or roughly 111 million U.S. residents representing 34 percent of the population, live in a community that has committed to or has already achieved 100 percent clean electricity, including communities like Frisco, Colorado that have set ambitious targets.

“We’re going to look back on this moment as the moment when local action and state commitments began to push the entire nation toward this goal,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation.

Not all 100 percent targets are alike, however. The report notes that these targets vary based on 1) what resources are eligible, 2) how binding the 100 percent target is, and 3) how and when the target will be achieved.

These distinctions will carry a lot of weight as the policy discussion shifts from setting goals to actually meeting targets. They also have implications for communities in terms of health benefits, cost savings and employment opportunities.

100% targets come in different forms

One key attribute is whether a target is based on "renewable" or "clean" energy resources. Some 100 percent targets, like Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s 2030 plan, are focused exclusively on renewable energy, or sources that cannot be depleted, such as wind, solar and geothermal. But most jurisdictions use the broader term “clean energy,” which can also include resources like large hydroelectric generation and nuclear power.

States also vary in their treatment of renewable energy certificates, used to track and assign ownership to renewable energy generation and use. Unbundled RECs allow for the environmental attributes of the renewable energy resource to be purchased separately from the physical electricity delivery.

The binding nature of these targets is also noteworthy. Seven states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have passed 100 percent clean energy transition laws. Of the jurisdictions that have passed 100 percent legislation, all but one specifies that the target is a “mandate,” according to the report. Nevada is the only state to call the target a “goal.”

Governors in four other states have signed executive orders with 100 percent clean energy goals.

Target timelines also vary. Washington, D.C. has set the most ambitious target date, with a mandate to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2032. Other states and cities have set deadline years between 2040 and 2050. All "100 percent" state laws, and some city and county policies, also include interim targets to keep clean energy deployment on track.

In addition, some locations have included some form of escape clause. For instance, Salt Lake City, which last month passed a resolution establishing a goal of powering the county with 100 percent clean electricity by 2030, included “exit strategies” in its policy in order to encourage stakeholder buy-in, said Mayor Jackie Biskupski, speaking last week at the UCLA summit.

“We don’t think they’ll get used, but they’re there,” she said.

Other locales, meanwhile, have decided to go well beyond 100 percent clean electricity. The State of California and 44 cities have set even more challenging targets to also transition their entire transportation, heating and cooling sectors to 100 percent clean energy sources, and proposals like requiring solar panels on new buildings underscore how policy can accelerate progress across sectors.

Businesses are simultaneously electing to adopt more clean and renewable energy. Six utilities across the United States have set their own 100 percent clean or carbon-free electricity targets. UCLA researchers did not include populations served by these utilities in their analysis of locations with state and city 100 percent clean commitments.

“We cannot wait”

All state and local policies that require a certain share of electricity to come from renewable energy resources have contributed to more efficient project development and financing mechanisms, which have supported continued technology cost declines and contributed to a near doubling of renewable energy generation since 2008.

Many communities are switching to clean energy in order to save money, now that the cost calculation is increasingly in favor of renewables over fossil fuels, as more jurisdictions get on the road to 100% renewables worldwide. Additional benefits include local job creation, cleaner air and electricity system resilience due to greater reliance on local energy resources.

Another major motivator is climate change. The electricity sector is responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, second only to transportation. Decarbonizing the grid also helps to clean up the transportation sector as more vehicles move to electricity as their fuel source.

“The now-constant threat of wildfires, droughts, severe storms and habitat loss driven by climate change signals a crisis we can no longer ignore,” said Carla Peterman, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at investor-owned utility Southern California Edison. “We cannot wait and we should not wait when there are viable solutions to pursue now.”

Prior to joining SCE on October 1, Peterman served as a member of the California Public Utilities Commission, which implements and administers renewable portfolio standard (RPS) compliance rules for California’s retail sellers of electricity. California’s target requires 60 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy resources by 2030, and all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.  

How CCAs are driving renewable energy deployment

One way California communities are working to meet the state’s ambitious targets is through community-choice aggregation, especially after California's near-100% renewable milestone underscored what's possible, via which cities and counties can take control of their energy procurement decisions to suit their preferences. Investor-owned utilities no longer purchase energy for these jurisdictions, but they continue to operate the transmission and distribution grid for all electricity users.                           

A second paper released by the Luskin Center for Innovation in recent days examines how community-choice aggregators are affecting levels of renewable energy deployment in California and contributing to the state’s 100 percent target.

The paper finds that 19 CCAs have launched in California since 2010, growing to include more than 160 towns, cities and counties. Of those communities, 64 have a 100 percent renewable or clean energy policy as their default energy program.

Because of these policies, the UCLA paper finds that “CCAs have had both direct and indirect effects that have led to increases in the clean energy sold in excess of the state’s RPS.”

From 2011 to 2018, CCAs directly procured 24 terawatt-hours of RPS-eligible electricity, 11 TWh of which have been voluntary or in excess of RPS compliance, according to the paper.

The formation of CCAs has also had an indirect effect on investor-owned utilities. As customers have left investor-owned utilities to join CCAs, the utilities have been left holding contracts for more renewable energy than they need to comply with California’s clean energy targets, amid rising solar and wind curtailments that complicate procurement decisions. UCLA researchers estimate that this indirect effect of CCA formation has left IOUs holding 13 terawatt-hours in excess of RPS requirements.

The paper concludes that CCAs have helped to accelerate California’s ability to meet state renewable energy targets over the past decade. However, the future contributions of CCAs to the RPS are more uncertain as communities make new power-purchasing decisions and utilities seek to reduce their excess renewable energy contracts.

“CCAs offer a way for communities to put their desire for clean energy into action. They're growing fast in California, one of only eight states where this kind of mechanism is allowed," said UCLA's Kelly Trumbull, an author of the report. "State and federal policies could be reformed to better enable communities to meet local demand for renewable energy.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project faces NEB certificate review, with public hearings, Indigenous consultation, and cross-border approval weighing permit vs certificate timelines, potential land expropriation, and Hydro's 2020 in-service date for the 308-MW intertie.

Key Points

A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba and Minnesota, now under NEB review through a permit or certificate process.

✅ NEB recommends certificate with public hearings and cabinet approval

✅ Stakeholders cite land, health, and economic impacts along route

✅ Hydro targets May-June 2020 in-service despite review

A recommendation from the National Energy Board could push back the construction start date of a $453-million hydroelectric transmission line from Manitoba to Minnesota.

In a letter to federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, the regulatory agency recommends using a "certificate" approval process, which could take more time than the simpler "permit" process Manitoba Hydro favours.

The certificate process involves public hearings, reflecting First Nations intervention seen in other power-line debates, to weigh the merits of the project, which would then go to the federal cabinet for approval.

The NEB says this process would allow for more procedural flexibility and "address Aboriginal concerns that may arise in the circumstances of this process."

The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project would provide the final link in a chain that brings hydroelectricity from generating stations in northern Manitoba, through the Bipole III transmission line and, like the New England Clean Power Link project, across the U.S. border as part of a 308-megawatt deal with the Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service.

When Hydro filed its application in December 2016, it had expected to have approval by the end of August 2017 and to begin construction on the line in mid-December, in order to have the line in operation by May or June 2020.  

Groups representing stakeholders along the proposed route of the transmission line had mixed reactions to the energy board's recommendation.

A lawyer representing a coalition of more than 120 landowners in the Rural Municipality of Taché and around La Broquerie, Man., welcomed the opportunity to have a more "fulsome" discussion about the project.

"I think it's a positive step. As people become more familiar with the project, the deficiencies with it become more obvious," said Kevin Toyne, who represents the Southeast Stakeholders Coalition.

Toyne said some coalition members are worried that Hydro will forcibly expropriate land in order to build the line, while others are worried about potential economic and health impacts of having the line so close to their homes. They have proposed moving the line farther east.

When the Clean Environment Commission — an arm's-length provincial government agency — held public hearings on the proposed route earlier this year, the coalition brought their concerns forward, echoing Site C opposition voiced by northerners, but Toyne says both the commission and Hydro ignored them.

Hydro still aiming for 2020 in-service date

The Manitoba Métis Federation also participated in those public hearings. MMF president David Chartrand worries about the impact a possible delay, as seen with the Site C work halt tied to treaty rights, could have on revenue from sales of hydroelectric power to the U.S.

"I know that a lot of money, billions have been invested on this line. And if the connection line is not done, then of course this will be sitting here, not gaining any revenue, which will affect every Métis in this province, given our Hydro bill's going to go up," Chartrand said.The NEB letter to Minister Carr requests that he "determine this matter in an expedited manner."

Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email that the Crown corporation will participate in whatever process, permit or certificate, the NEB takes.

"Manitoba Hydro does not have any information at this point in time that would change the estimated in-service date (May-June 2020) for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project," he said.

The federal government "is currently reviewing the NEB's recommendation to designate the project as subject to a certificate, which would result in public hearings," said Alexandre Deslongchamps, a spokesperson for Carr.

"Under the National Energy Board Act, an international power line requires either the approval by the NEB through a permit or approval by the Government of Canada by a certificate. Both must be issued by the NEB," he wrote in an email to CBC News.

By law, the certificate process is not to take longer than 15 months.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News