Ontario to test plug-in cars

2019 Global CO2 Emissions stayed flat, IEA reports, as renewable energy growth, wind and solar deployment, nuclear output, and coal-to-gas switching in advanced economies offset increases elsewhere, supporting climate goals and clean energy transitions.

Key Points

33 gigatonnes, unchanged YoY, as advanced economies cut power emissions via renewables, gas, and nuclear.

✅ IEA reports emissions flat at 33 Gt despite 2.9% GDP growth

✅ Advanced economies cut power-sector CO2 via wind, solar, gas

✅ Nuclear restarts and mild weather aided reductions

Despite widespread expectations of another increase, global energy-related CO2 emissions stopped growing in 2019, according to International Energy Agency (IEA) data released today. After two years of growth, global emissions were unchanged at 33 gigatonnes in 2019, a notable marker in the global energy transition narrative even as the world economy expanded by 2.9%.

This was primarily due to declining emissions from electricity generation in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar across many markets), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power generation, the Paris-based organisation says in the report.

"We now need to work hard to make sure that 2019 is remembered as a definitive peak in global emissions, not just another pause in growth," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director. "We have the energy technologies to do this, and we have to make use of them all."

Higher nuclear power generation in advanced economies, particularly in Japan and South Korea, avoided over 50 Mt of CO2 emissions. Other factors included milder weather in several countries, and slower economic growth in some emerging markets. In China, emissions rose but were tempered by slower economic growth and higher output from low-carbon sources of electricity. Renewables continued to expand in China, and 2019 was also the first full year of operation for seven large-scale nuclear reactors in the country.

A significant decrease in emissions in advanced economies in 2019 offset continued growth elsewhere. The USA recorded the largest emissions decline on a country basis, with a fall of 140 million tonnes, or 2.9%. US emissions are now down by almost 1 gigatonne from their peak in 2000. Emissions in the European Union fell by 160 million tonnes, or 5%, in 2019 driven by reductions in the power sector as electricity producers move away from coal in the generation mix. Japan’s emissions fell by 45 million tonnes, or around 4%, the fastest pace of decline since 2009, as output from recently restarted nuclear reactors increased.

Emissions in the rest of the world grew by close to 400 million tonnes in 2019, with almost 80% of the increase coming from countries in Asia where coal-fired power generation continued to rise, and in Australia emissions rose 2% due to electricity and transport. Coal-fired power generation in advanced economies declined by nearly 15%, reflecting a sharp fall in coal-fired electricity across multiple markets, as a result of growth in renewables, coal-to-gas switching, a rise in nuclear power and weaker electricity demand.

The IEA will publish a World Energy Outlook Special Report in June that will map out how to cut global energy-related carbon emissions by one-third by 2030 and put the world on track for longer-term climate goals, a pathway that, in Canada, will require more electricity to hit net-zero. It will also hold an IEA Clean Energy Transitions Summit in Paris on 9 July, bringing together key government ministers, CEOs, investors and other major stakeholders.

Birol will discuss the results published today tomorrow at an IEA Speaker Series event at its headquarters with energy and climate ministers from Poland, which hosted COP24 in Katowice; Spain, which hosted COP25 in Madrid; and the UK, which will host COP26 in Glasgow this year, as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to break records worldwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ottawa Sewage Energy Exchange System uses wastewater heat recovery and efficient heat pumps to deliver renewable district energy, zero carbon heating and cooling, cutting greenhouse gas emissions at LeBreton Flats and scaling urban developments.

Key Points

A district energy system recovering wastewater heat via pumps to deliver zero carbon heating and cooling.

✅ Delivers 9 MW heating and cooling for 2.4M sq ft at LeBreton Flats

✅ Cuts 5,066 tonnes CO2e each year, reducing greenhouse gases

✅ Powers Odenak zero carbon housing via district energy

Ottawa is embarking on a groundbreaking initiative to harness the latent thermal energy within its wastewater system, in tandem with advances in energy storage in Ontario that strengthen grid resilience, marking a significant stride toward sustainable urban development. The Sewage Energy Exchange System (SEES) project, a collaborative effort led by the LeBreton Community Utility Partnership—which includes Envari Holding Inc. (a subsidiary of Hydro Ottawa) and Theia Partners—aims to revolutionize how the city powers its buildings.

Harnessing Wastewater for Sustainable Energy

The SEES will utilize advanced heat pump technology to extract thermal energy from the city's wastewater infrastructure, providing both heating and cooling to buildings within the LeBreton Flats redevelopment. This innovative approach eliminates the need for fossil fuels, aligning with Ottawa's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean energy solutions across the province, including the Hydrogen Innovation Fund that supports new low-carbon pathways.

The system operates by diverting sewage from the municipal collection network into an external well, where it undergoes filtration to remove large solids. The filtered water is then passed through a heat exchanger, transferring thermal energy to the building's heating and cooling systems. After the energy is extracted, the treated water is safely returned to the city's sewer system.

Environmental and Economic Impact

Once fully implemented, the SEES is projected to deliver over 9 megawatts of heating and cooling capacity, servicing approximately 2.4 million square feet of development. This capacity is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 5,066 tonnes annually—equivalent to the electricity consumption of over 3,300 homes for a year. Such reductions are pivotal in helping Ottawa meet its ambitious goal of achieving a 96% reduction in community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, as outlined in its Climate Change Master Plan and Energy Evolution strategy, and they align with Ontario's plan to rely on battery storage to meet rising demand across the grid.

Integration with the Odenak Development

The first phase of the SEES will support the Odenak development, a mixed-use project comprising two high-rise residential buildings. This development is poised to be Canada's largest residential zero-carbon project, echoing calls for Northern Ontario grid sustainability from community groups, featuring 601 housing units, with 41% designated as affordable housing. The integration of the SEES will ensure that Odenak operates entirely on renewable energy, setting a benchmark for future urban developments.

Broader Implications and Future Expansion

The SEES project is not just a localized initiative; it represents a scalable model for sustainable urban energy solutions that aligns with green energy investments in British Columbia and other jurisdictions. The LeBreton Community Utility Partnership is in discussions with the National Capital Commission to explore extending the SEES network to additional parcels within the LeBreton Flats redevelopment. Expanding the system could lead to economies of scale, further reducing costs and enhancing the environmental benefits.

Ottawa's venture into wastewater-based energy systems places it at the forefront of a growing trend in North America. Cities like Toronto and Vancouver have initiated similar projects, while related pilots such as the EV-to-grid pilot in Nova Scotia highlight complementary approaches, and European counterparts have long utilized sewage heat recovery systems. Ottawa's adoption of this technology underscores its commitment to innovation and sustainability in urban planning.

The SEES project at LeBreton Flats exemplifies how cities can repurpose existing infrastructure to create sustainable, low-carbon energy solutions. By transforming wastewater into a valuable energy resource, Ottawa is setting a precedent for environmentally responsible urban development. As the city moves forward with this initiative, it not only addresses immediate energy needs but also contributes to a cleaner, more sustainable future for its residents, even as the province accelerates Ontario's energy storage push to maintain reliability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Rates cut costs for shift workers and EV charging, with time-of-use pricing, off-peak savings, on-peak premiums, kilowatt-hour details, and Ontario Energy Board guidance for homes and businesses across participating utilities.

Key Points

Ontario's ultra-low overnight plan: 2.4c/kWh 11pm-7am for EVs, shift workers; higher daytime on-peak pricing.

✅ 2.4c/kWh 11pm-7am; 24c/kWh on-peak 4pm-9pm

✅ Best for EV charging, shift work, night usage

✅ Available provincewide by Nov 1 via local utilities

The Ontario government is introducing a new ultra-low overnight price plan that can benefit shift workers and individuals who charge electric vehicles while they sleep.

Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, Energy Minister Todd Smith said the new plan could save customers up to $90 a year.

“Consumer preferences are still changing and our government realized there was more we could do, especially as the province continues to have an excess supply of clean electricity at night when province-wide electricity demand is lower,” Smith said, noting a trend underscored by Ottawa's demand decline during the pandemic.

The new rate, which will be available as an opt-in option as of May 1, will be 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Officials say this is 67 per cent lower than the current off-peak rate, which saw a off-peak relief extension during the pandemic.

However, customers should be aware that this plan will mean a higher on-peak rate, as unlike earlier calls to cut peak rates, Hydro One peak charges remained unchanged for self-isolating customers.

The new plan will be offered by Toronto Hydro, London Hydro, Centre Wellington Hydro, Hearst Power, Renfrew Hydro, Wasaga Distribution, and Sioux Lookout Hydro by May. Officials have said this will be expanded to all local distribution companies by Nov. 1.

With the new addition of the “ultra low” pricing, there are now three different electricity plans that Ontarians can choose from. Here is what you have to know about the new hydro options:

TIME OF USE:
Most residential customers, businesses and farms are eligible for these rates, similar to BC Hydro time-of-use proposals in another province, which are divided into off-peak, mid-peak and on-peak hours.

This is what customers will pay as of May 1 according to the Ontario Energy Board, following earlier COVID-19 electricity relief measures that temporarily adjusted rates:

 Off-peak (Weekdays between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and on weekends/holidays): 7.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
 Mid-Peak (Weekdays between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m., and between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.): 10.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
 On-Peak ( Weekdays 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.): 15.1 cents per kilowatt-hour

TIERED RATES
This plan allows customers to get a standard rate depending on how much electricity is used. There are various thresholds per tier, and once a household exceeds that threshold, a higher price applies. Officials say this option may be beneficial for retirees who are home often during the day or those who use less electricity overall.

The tiers change depending on the season. This is what customers will pay as of May 1:

 Residential households that use 600 kilowatts of electricity per month and non-residential businesses that use 750 kilowatts per month: 8.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.
 Residences and businesses that use more than that will pay a flat rate of 10.3 cents per kilowatt-hour

ULTRA-LOW OVERNIGHT RATES
Customers can opt-in to this plan if they use most of their electricity overnight.

This is what customers will pay as of May 1:

•  Between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.: 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
•  Weekends and holidays between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.: 7.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
•  Mid-Peak (Weekdays between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., and between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m.): 10.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
•  On-Peak (weekdays between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m.): 24 cents per kilowatt-hour

More information on these plans can be found on the Ontario Energy Board website, alongside stable pricing for industrial and commercial updates from the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Adani Electricity Mumbai Power Cuts follow non-payment rules, reflecting billing disputes, regulatory compliance, consumer impact, and affordability concerns, while prompting mitigation measures like flexible payment plans, assistance programs, and clearer communication for residents.

Key Points

AEML cutoffs for unpaid bills per rules, raising affordability worries, billing issues, and calls for flexible aid.

✅ Triggered by unpaid bills under regulatory guidelines

✅ Affordability and billing transparency concerns raised

✅ Mitigation: flexible plans, aid for low-income users

Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited (AEML) recently made headlines by cutting power supply to around 100 homes in Mumbai, sparking discussions about the reasons behind this action and its implications for consumers, especially as reports like the Northeast D.C. outage continue to surface.

Background of the Incident

The power supply disconnections by AEML were reportedly due to non-payment of electricity bills by the affected households. This action, although necessary under AEML's policies and in accordance with regulatory guidelines, has raised concerns about the impact on residents, particularly during challenging economic times when pandemic electricity shut-offs highlighted energy insecurity.

Reasons for Non-Payment

Non-payment of electricity bills can stem from various reasons, including financial hardships, disputes over billing accuracy, or unforeseen circumstances affecting household finances. In Mumbai, where the cost of living is high, utility bills constitute a significant portion of monthly expenses for many households, mirroring trends of rising electricity bills seen elsewhere.

Regulatory and Legal Framework

AEML's decision to disconnect power supply aligns with regulatory provisions governing utility services, which may include emergency disconnection moratoriums in other jurisdictions. Utility companies are mandated to enforce bill payments to maintain operational sustainability and ensure fair distribution of resources among consumers.

Consumer Impact and Response

The power disconnections have prompted reactions from affected residents and consumer advocacy groups, highlighting issues related to affordability, transparency in billing practices, and the need for supportive measures during times of economic distress amid heat-related electricity struggles that pressure vulnerable households.

Mitigation Measures

In response to such incidents, utility companies and regulatory authorities often implement mitigation measures. These may include flexible payment options, financial assistance programs for low-income households, and enhanced communication about billing procedures and payment deadlines, along with policy scrutiny such as utility spending oversight to curb unnecessary costs.

Future Considerations

As cities like Mumbai continue to grow and face challenges related to urbanization and infrastructure development, ensuring reliable and affordable access to essential services like electricity, including efforts to prevent summer power outages, remains a priority. Balancing the operational needs of utility providers with consumer welfare concerns requires ongoing dialogue and proactive measures from all stakeholders.

Conclusion

The power supply cuts by Adani Electricity in Mumbai underscore the complexities of managing utility services in urban centers. While necessary for financial viability and regulatory compliance, such actions also highlight broader issues of affordability and consumer protection. Moving forward, collaborative efforts between utility companies, regulatory authorities, and community stakeholders are essential in addressing these challenges and ensuring equitable access to essential services for all residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Coal Phase-Out 2038 advances the energy transition, curbing lignite emissions while scaling renewable energy, carbon pricing, and hydrogen storage amid a nuclear phase-out and regional just-transition funding for miners and communities.

Key Points

Germany's plan to end coal by 2038, fund regional transition, and scale renewable energy while exiting nuclear.

✅ Closes last coal plant by 2038; reviews may accelerate.

✅ 40b euros aid for lignite regions and workforce.

✅ Emphasizes renewables, hydrogen, carbon pricing reforms.

German lawmakers have finalized the country's long-awaited phase-out of coal as an energy source, backing a plan that environmental groups say isn't ambitious enough and free marketeers criticize as a waste of taxpayers' money.

Bills approved by both houses of parliament Friday envision shutting down the last coal-fired power plant by 2038 and spending some 40 billion euros ($45 billion) to help affected regions cope with the transition, which has been complicated by grid expansion woes in recent years.

The plan is part of Germany's `energy transition' - an effort to wean Europe's biggest economy off planet-warming fossil fuels and generate all of the country's considerable energy needs from renewable sources. Achieving that goal is made harder than in comparable countries such as France and Britain because of Germany's existing commitment to also phase out nuclear power entirely by the end of 2022.

"The days of coal are numbered in Germany," Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said. "Germany is the first industrialized country that leaves behind both nuclear energy and coal."

Greenpeace and other environmental groups have staged vocal protests against the plan, including by dropping a banner down the front of the Reichstag building Friday. They argue that the government's road map won't reduce Germany's greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to meet the targets set out in the Paris climate accord.

"Germany, the country that burns the greatest amount of lignite coal worldwide, will burden the next generation with 18 more years of carbon dioxide," Greenpeace Germany's executive director Martin Kaiser told The Associated Press.

Kaiser, who was part of a government-appointed expert commission, accused Chancellor Angela Merkel of making a "historic mistake," saying an end date for coal of 2030 would have sent a strong signal for European and global climate policy. Merkel has said she wants Europe to be the first continent to end its greenhouse gas emissions, by 2050, even as some in Berlin debate a possible nuclear U-turn to reach that goal faster.

Germany closed its last black coal mine in 2018, but it continues to import the fuel and extract its own reserves of lignite, a brownish coal that is abundant in the west and east of the country, and generates about a third of its electricity from coal in recent years. Officials warn that the loss of mining jobs could hurt those economically fragile regions, though efforts are already under way to turn the vast lignite mines into nature reserves and lakeside resorts.

Schulze, the environment minister, said there would be regular government reviews to examine whether the end date for coal can be brought forward, even as Berlin temporarily extended nuclear operations during the energy crisis. She noted that by the end of 2022, eight of the country's most polluting coal-fired plants will have already been closed.

Environmentalists have also criticized the large sums being offered to coal companies to shut down their plants, a complaint shared by libertarians such as Germany's opposition Free Democratic Party.

Katja Suding, a leading FDP lawmaker, said the government should have opted to expand existing emissions trading systems that put a price on carbon, thereby encouraging operators to shut down unprofitable coal plants.

Katja Suding, a leading FDP lawmaker, said the government should have opted to expand existing emissions trading systems, rather than banking on a nuclear option, that put a price on carbon, thereby encouraging operators to shut down unprofitable coal plants.

"You just have to make it so expensive that it's not profitable anymore to turn coal into electricity," she said.

This week, utility companies in Spain shut down seven of the country's 15 coal-fired power plants, saying they couldn't be operated at profit without government subsidies.

But the head of Germany's main miners' union, Michael Vassiliadis, welcomed the decision, calling it a "historic milestone." He urged the government to focus next on an expansion of renewable energy generation and the use of hydrogen as a clean alternative for storing and transporting energy in the future, amid arguments that nuclear won't fix the gas crunch in the near term.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News