Utility to boost peak power by 2010

Ontario Global Adjustment Deferral provides COVID-19 relief to industrial and commercial electricity consumers, holding GA charges at pre-COVID levels, aligning Class A and Class B rates, and deferring non-RPP costs from April to June 2020.

Key Points

An emergency measure that defers a portion of GA charges to stabilize electricity bills for non-RPP Class A/B consumers.

✅ Holds GA near pre-COVID levels at $115/MWh for Class B.

✅ Applies equal percentage relief to Class A customers.

✅ Deferred costs recovered over 12 months from Jan 2021.

Through an emergency order passed today, the Ontario government is taking steps to defer a portion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan for the period starting from April 2020, at a time when Toronto's growing electricity needs require careful planning. This initiative is intended to provide companies with temporary immediate relief on their monthly electricity bills, as utilities use AI to adapt to shifting electricity demands in April, May and June 2020. The government intends to keep this emergency order in place until May 31, 2020, and subsequent regulatory amendments would, if approved, provide for the deferral of these charges for June 2020 as well.

This relief will prevent a marked increase in Global Adjustment charges due to the low electricity demand caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. Without this emergency order, a small industrial or commercial consumer (i.e., Class B) could have seen bills increase by 15 per cent or more. This emergency order will hold GA rates in line with pre-COVID-19 levels, even as clean energy initiatives in British Columbia accelerate across the sector.

"Ontario's industrial and commercial electricity consumers are being impacted by COVID-19. They employ thousands of hardworking Ontarians, and we know this is a challenging time for them," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. "This would provide immediate financial support for more than 50,000 companies when they need it most: as they do their part to stop the spread of COVID-19 and as they prepare to help get our economy moving again with Toronto preparing for a surge in electricity demand in the years ahead."

Quick Facts

• The GA rate for smaller industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class B) has been set at $115 per megawatt-hour, which is roughly in line with the March 2020 value, alongside efforts to develop IoT security standards for electricity sector devices today. Large industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class A) will receive the same percentage reduction in GA charges as Class B consumers.
• Subject to the approval of subsequent amendments, deferred costs would be recovered over a 12-month period beginning in January 2021, amid increasing exposure to harsh weather across Canadian grids.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydrogen Energy Transition accelerates green hydrogen, electrolyzers, renewables, and fuel cells, as the EU and US scale decarbonization, NextEra tests hydrogen-to-power, and DOE funds pilots to replace natural gas and cut CO2.

Key Points

A shift to deploy green hydrogen tech to decarbonize power, industry, and transport across EU and US energy systems.

✅ EU targets 40 GW electrolyzers plus 40 GW imports by 2030

✅ DOE funds pilots; NextEra trials hydrogen-to-power at Okeechobee

✅ Aims to replace natural gas, enable fuel cells, cut CO2

Last month, the European Union set out a comprehensive hydrogen strategy as part of its goal to achieve carbon neutrality for all its industries by 2050. The EU has an ambitious target to build out at least 40 gigawatts of electrolyzers within its borders by 2030 and also support the development of another 40 gigawatts of green hydrogen in nearby countries that can export to the region by the same date. The announcement came as little surprise, given that Europe is regarded as being far ahead of the United States in the shift to renewable energy, even as it looks to catch up on fuel cells with Asian leaders today.

But the hydrogen bug has finally arrived stateside: The U.S. Department of Energy has unveiled the H2@Scale initiative whereby a handful of companies including Cummins Inc. (NYSE: CMI), Caterpillar Inc.(NYSE: CAT), 3M Company (NYSE: MMM), Plug Power Inc.(NASDAQ: PLUG) and EV startup Nikola Corp.(NASDAQ: NKLA), even as the industry faces threats to the EV boom that investors are watching, will receive $64 million in government funding for hydrogen research projects.

Hot on the heels of the DoE initiative: American electric utility and renewable energy giant, NextEra Energy Inc.(NYSE: NEE), has unveiled an equally ambitious plan to start replacing its natural gas-powered plants with hydrogen.

During its latest earnings call, NextEra’s CFO Rebecca Kujawa said the company is “…particularly excited about the long-term potential of hydrogen” and discussed plans to start a pilot hydrogen project at one of its generating stations at Okeechobee Clean Energy Center owned by its subsidiary, Florida Power & Light (FPL). NextEra reported Q2 revenue of $4.2B (-15.5% Y/Y), which fell short of Wall Street’s consensus by $1.12B while GAAP EPS of $2.59 (+1.1% Y/Y) beat estimates by $0.09. The company attributed the big revenue slump to the effects of Covid-19.

Renewable energy and hydrogen stocks have lately become hot property as EV adoption hits an inflection point worldwide, with NEE up 16% in the year-to-date; PLUG +144%, Bloom Energy Corp. (NYSE: BE) +62.8% while Ballard Power Systems (NASDAQ: BLDP) has gained 98.2% over the timeframe.

NextEra’s usual modus operandi involves conducting small experiments with new technologies to establish their cost-effectiveness, a pragmatic approach informed by how electricity changed in 2021 across the grid, before going big if the trials are successful.

CFO Kujawa told analysts:
“Based on our ongoing analysis of the long-term potential of low-cost renewables, we remain confident as ever that wind, solar, and battery storage will be hugely disruptive to the country’s existing generation fleet, while reducing cost for customers and helping to achieve future CO2 emissions reductions. However, to achieve an emissions-free future, we believe that other technologies will be necessary, and we are particularly excited about the long-term potential of hydrogen.”

NextEra plans to test the electricity-to-hydrogen-to-electricity model at its natural gas-powered Okeechobee Clean Energy Center that came online in 2019. Okeechobee is already regarded as one of the cleanest thermal energy facilities anywhere on the globe. However, replacing natural gas with zero emissions hydrogen would be a significant step in helping the company achieve its goal to become 100% emissions-free by 2050.

Kujawa said the company plans to continue evaluating other potential hydrogen opportunities to accelerate the decarbonization of transportation fuel, amid the debate over the future of vehicles between electricity and hydrogen, and industrial feedstock and also support future demand for low-cost renewables.

Another critical milestone: NextEra finished the quarter with a renewables backlog of approximately 14,400 megawatts, its largest in its 20-year development history. To put that backlog into context, NextEra revealed that it is larger than the operating wind and solar portfolios of all but two companies in the world.

Hydrogen Bubble?
That said, not everybody is buying the hydrogen hype.

Barron’s Bill Apton says Wall Street has discovered hydrogen this year and that hydrogen stocks are a bubble, even as hybrid vehicles gain momentum in the U.S. market according to recent reports. Apton says the huge runup by Plug Power, Ballard Energy, and Bloom Energy has left them trading at more than 50x future cash flow, making it hard for them to grow into their steep valuations. He notes that smaller hydrogen companies are up against big players and deep-pocketed manufacturers, including government-backed rivals in China and the likes of Cummins.

According to Apton, it could take a decade or more before environmentally-friendly hydrogen can become competitive with natural gas on a cost-basis, while new ideas like flow battery cars also vie for attention, making hydrogen stocks better long-term picks than the cult stocks they have become.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EU Electrification Strategy 2050 outlines shifting transport, buildings, and industry to clean power, accelerating EV adoption, heat pumps, and direct electrification to meet targets, reduce emissions, and replace fossil fuels with renewables and low-carbon grids.

Key Points

EU plan to cut emissions 95% by 2050 by electrifying transport, buildings and industry with clean power.

✅ 60% of final energy from electricity by 2050

✅ EVs dominate transport; up to 63% electric share

✅ Heat pumps electrify buildings; industry to 50% direct

The European Union has one of the most ambitious carbon emission reduction goals under the global Paris Agreement on climate change – a 95% reduction by 2050.

It seems that everyone has an idea for how to get there. Some are pushing nuclear energy. Others are pushing for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels and a switch to renewables.

Today the European electricity industry came out with their own plan, amid expectations of greater electricity price volatility in Europe in the coming years. A study published today by Eurelectric, the trade body of the European power sector, concludes that the 2050 goal will not be possible without a major shift to electricity in transport, buildings and industry.

The study finds that for the EU to reach its 95% emissions reduction target, electricity needs to cover at least 60 percent of final energy consumption by 2050. This would require a 1.5 percent year-on-year growth of EU electricity use, with evidence that EVs could raise electricity demand significantly in other markets, while at the same time reducing the EU’s overall energy consumption by 1.3 percent per year.

#google#

Transport is one of the areas where electrification can deliver the most benefit, because an electric car causes far less carbon emissions than a conventional vehicle, with e-mobility emerging as a key driver of electricity demand even if that electricity is generated in a fossil fuel power plant.

In the most ambitious scenario presented by the study, up to 63 percent of total final energy consumption in transport will be electric by 2050, and some analyses suggest that mass adoption of electric cars could occur much sooner, further accelerating progress.

Building have big potential as well, according to the study, with 45 to 63 percent of buildings energy consumption could be electric in 2050 by converting to electric heat pumps. Industrial processes could technically be electrified with up to 50 percent direct electrification in 2050, according to the study. The relative competitiveness of electricity against other carbon-neutral fuels will be the critical driver for this shift, but grid carbon intensity differs across markets, such as where fossil fuels still supply a notable share of generation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News