Emissions reduction programs catching on

B.C. LNG Electrification embeds clean hydro and wind power into low-emission liquefied natural gas, cutting carbon intensity, enabling coal displacement in Asia, and opening grid-scale demand for independent power producers and ITMO-based climate accounting.

Key Points

Powering LNG with clean electricity cuts carbon intensity, displaces coal, and grows demand for B.C.'s clean power.

✅ Electric-drive LNG cuts emissions intensity by up to 80%.

✅ Creates major grid load, boosting B.C. independent power producers.

✅ Enables ITMO crediting when coal displacement is verified.

B.C. has abundant clean power – if only there was a way to ship those electrons across the sea to help coal-dependent countries reduce their emissions, and even regionally, Alberta–B.C. grid link benefits could help move surplus power domestically.

Natural gas that is liquefied using clean hydro and wind power and then exported would be, in a sense, a way of embedding B.C.’s low emission electricity in another form of energy, and, alongside the Canada–Germany clean energy pact, part of a broader export strategy.

Given the increased demand that could come from an LNG industry – especially one that moves towards greater electrification and, as the IEA net-zero electricity report notes, broader system demand – poses some potentially big opportunities for B.C.’s clean energy independent power sector, as those attending the Clean Energy Association of BC's annual at the Generate conference heard recently.

At a session on LNG electrification, delegates were told that LNG produced in B.C. with electricity could have some significant environmental benefits.

Given how much power an LNG plant that uses electric drive consumes, an electrified LNG industry could also pose some significant opportunities for independent power producers – a sector that had the wind taken out of its sails with the sanctioning of the Site C dam project.

Only one LNG plant being built in B.C. – Woodfibre LNG – will use electric drive to produce LNG, although the companies behind Kitimat LNG have changed their original design plans, and now plan to use electric drive drive as well.

Even small LNG plants that use electric drive require a lot of power.

“We’re talking about a lot of power, since it’s one of the biggest consumers you can connect to a grid,” said Sven Demmig, head of project development for Siemens.

Most LNG plants still burn natural gas to drive the liquefaction process – a choice that intersects with climate policy and electricity grids in Canada. They typically generate 0.35 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG produced.

Because it will use electric drive, LNG produced by Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity that is 80% less than LNG produced in the Gulf of Mexico, said Woodfibre president David Keane.

In B.C., the benchmark for GHG intensities for LNG plants has been set at 0.16 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG. Above that, LNG producers would need to pay higher carbon taxes than those that are below the benchmark.

The LNG Canada plant has an intensity of 0.15 tonnes og CO2e per tonne of LNG. Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity of just 0.059, thanks to electric drive.

“So we will be significantly less than any operating facility in the world,” Keane said.

Keane said Sinopec has recently estimated that it expects China’s demand for natural gas to grow by 82% by 2030.

“So China will, in fact, get its gas supply,” Keane said. “The question is: where will that supply come from?

“For every tonne of LNG that’s being produced today in the United States -- and tonne of LNG that we’re not producing in Canada -- we’re seeing about 10 million tonnes of carbon leakage every single year.”

The first Canadian company to produce LNG that ended up in China is FortisBC. Small independent operators have been buying LNG from FortisBC’s Tilbury Island plant and shipping to China in ISO containers on container ships.

David Bennett, director of communications for FortisBC, said those shipments are traced to industries in China that are, indeed, using LNG instead of coal power now.

“We know where those shipping containers are going,” he said. “They’re actually going to displace coal in factories in China.”

Verifying what the LNG is used for is important, if Canadian producers want to claim any kind of climate credit. LNG shipped to Japan or South Korea to displace nuclear power, for example, would actually result in a net increase in GHGs. But used to displace coal, the emissions reductions can be significant, since natural gas produces about half the CO2 that coal does.

The problem for LNG producers here is B.C.’s emissions reduction targets as they stand today. Even LNG produced with electricity will produce some GHGs. The fact that LNG that could dramatically reduce GHGs in other countries, if it displaces coal power, does not count in B.C.’s carbon accounting.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries agree to set their own reduction targets, and, for Canada, cleaning up Canada’s electricity remains critical to meeting climate pledges, but don’t typically get to claim any reductions that might result outside their own country.

Canada is exploring the use of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMO) under the Under the Paris Agreement to allow Canada to claim some of the GHG reductions that result in other countries, like China, through the export of Canadian LNG.

“For example, if I were producing 4 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. and I was selling 100% of my LNG to China, and I can verify that they’re replacing coal…they would have a reduction of about 60 or million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions,” Keane said.

“So if they’re buying 4 million tonnes of emissions from us, under these ITMOs, then they have net reduction of 56 million tonnes, we’d have a net increase of zero.”

But even if China and Canada agreed to such a trading arrangement, the United Nations still hasn’t decided just how the rules around ITMOs will work.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Mines reported by IAEA at the Russian-occupied site: anti-personnel devices in a buffer zone, restricted areas; access limits to reactor rooftops and turbine halls heighten nuclear safety and security concerns in Ukraine.

Key Points

IAEA reports anti-personnel mines at Russian-held Zaporizhzhia, raising nuclear safety risks in buffer zones.

✅ IAEA observes mines in buffer zone at occupied site

✅ Restricted areas; no roof or turbine hall access granted

✅ Safety systems unaffected, but staff under pressure

The United Nations atomic watchdog said it saw anti-personnel mines at the site of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant which is occupied by Russian forces.

Europe's largest nuclear facility fell to Russian forces shortly after the invasion of Ukraine in February last year, as Moscow later sought to build power lines to reactivate it amid ongoing control of the area. Kyiv and Moscow have since accused each other of planning an incident at the site.

On July 23 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts "saw some mines located in a buffer zone between the site's internal and external perimeter barriers," agency chief Rafael Grossi said in a statement on Monday.

The statement did not say how many mines the team had seen.

The devices were in "restricted areas" that operating plant personnel cannot access, Mr Grossi said, adding the IAEA's initial assessment was that any detonation "should not affect the site's nuclear safety and security systems".

Laying explosives at the site was "inconsistent with the IAEA safety standards and nuclear security guidance" and, amid controversial proposals on Ukraine's nuclear plants that have circulated internationally, created additional psychological pressure on staff, he added.

Ukrainians in Nikopol are out of water and within Russia's firing line. But Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant could pose the biggest threat, even as Ukraine has resumed electricity exports to regional grids.

Last week the IAEA said its experts had carried out inspections at the plant, without "observing" the presence of any mines, although they had not been given access to the rooftops of the reactor buildings, while a possible agreement to curb attacks on plants was being discussed.

The IAEA had still not been given access to the roofs of the reactor buildings and their turbine halls, its latest statement said, even as a proposal to control Ukraine's nuclear plants drew scrutiny.

After falling into Russian hands, Europe's biggest power plant was targeted by gunfire and has been severed from the grid several times, raising nuclear risk warnings from the IAEA and others.

The six reactor units, which before the war produced around a fifth of Ukraine's electricity, have been shut down for months, prompting interest in wind power development as a harder-to-disrupt source.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Heathrow Airport Power Outage 2025 disrupted operations with mass flight cancellations and diversions after a grid failure, exposing infrastructure resilience gaps, crisis management flaws, and raising passenger compensation and safety oversight concerns.

Key Points

A grid failure closed Heathrow, causing mass cancellations and diversions, exposing resilience and communication lapses.

✅ Grid fire triggered airport-wide shutdown

✅ 1,400+ flights canceled or diverted

✅ Inquiry probes resilience, communication, compensation

On March 21, 2025, Heathrow Airport, Europe's busiest, suffered a catastrophic power outage, similar to another high-profile outage seen at major events, that led to the cancellation and diversion of over 1,400 flights, affecting nearly 300,000 passengers and costing airlines an estimated £100 million. The power failure, triggered by a fire at an electricity substation in west London, left Heathrow with a significant operational crisis. This disruption is even more significant considering that Heathrow is one of the most expensive airports globally, which raises concerns about its infrastructure resilience and broader electricity system resilience across Europe.

In a parliamentary committee meeting, Heathrow officials admitted that vulnerabilities in the airport’s power supply were flagged just days before the outage. Nigel Wicking, Chief Executive of the Heathrow Airline Operators' Committee (HAOC), informed MPs that concerns regarding power resilience had been raised on March 15, following disruptions caused by cable thefts impacting runway lights. Despite these warnings, the airport’s management did not address the vulnerabilities urgently, even as UK net zero policies continue to reshape infrastructure planning, which ultimately led to the disastrous outage.

The airport was closed for a day, with serious consequences for not only airlines but also the surrounding community and businesses. British Airways alone faced millions of pounds in losses, and passengers experienced significant emotional distress, missing vital life events like weddings and funerals due to flight cancellations. The committee is now questioning officials from National Grid and Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks to better understand why Heathrow’s infrastructure failed, in the context of a cleaner grid following the British carbon tax that reduced coal use, how it communicated with affected parties, and what measures will be taken to compensate impacted passengers.

Heathrow’s Chief Executive, Thomas Woldbye, defended the closure decision, stating it would have been disastrous to keep the airport open under such circumstances. He noted that continuing operations would have left tens of thousands of passengers stranded and would have posed safety risks due to the failure of fire surveillance and CCTV systems. However, Wicking, representing the airlines, pointed out that Heathrow’s lack of resilience was unacceptable given the amount spent on the airport, emphasizing the need for better infrastructure, including addressing SF6 in switchgear during upgrades, and more transparent management practices.

Looking forward, the MPs intend to investigate the airport’s emergency preparedness, why the resilience review from 2018 wasn’t shared with airlines, and whether enough preventative measures were in place amid surging data demand that could strain electricity supplies. The outcome of this inquiry could have lasting effects on how Heathrow and other major airports handle their infrastructure and crisis management systems, as drought-driven hydro challenges demonstrate the wider climate stresses on power networks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Electricity Grid Investment underpins net zero, reinforcing transmission and distribution networks to integrate wind, solar, EV charging, and heat pumps, while Ofgem balances investor returns, debt risks, price controls, resilience, and consumer bills.

Key Points

Capital to reinforce grids for net zero, integrating wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps while balancing returns and bills.

✅ 170bn-210bn GBP by 2050 to reinforce cables, pylons, capacity.

✅ Ofgem to add investability metric while protecting consumers.

✅ Integrates wind, solar, EVs, heat pumps; manages grid resilience.

Prime Minister Sunak's recent upgrade to his home's electricity grid, designed to power his heated swimming pool, serves as a microcosm of a much larger challenge facing the UK: transforming the nation's entire electricity network for net zero emissions, amid Europe's electrification push across the continent.

This transition requires a monumental £170bn-£210bn investment by 2050, earmarked for reinforcing and expanding onshore cables and pylons that deliver electricity from power stations to homes and businesses. This overhaul is crucial to accommodate the planned switch from fossil fuels to clean energy sources - wind and solar farms - powering homes with electric cars, as EV demand on the grid rises, and heat pumps.

The UK government's Climate Change Committee warns of potentially doubled electricity demand by 2050, the target date for net zero, even though managing EV charging can ease local peaks. This translates to a significant financial burden for companies like National Grid, SSE, and Scottish Power who own the main transmission networks and some regional distribution networks.

Balancing investor needs for returns and ensuring affordable energy bills for consumers presents a delicate tightrope act for regulators like Ofgem. The National Audit Office criticized Ofgem in 2020 for allowing network owners excessive returns, prompting concerns about potential bill hikes, especially after lessons from 2021 reshaped market dynamics.

Think-tank Common Wealth reported that distribution networks paid out a staggering £3.6bn to their owners between 2017 and 2021, raising questions about the balance between profitability and affordability, amid UK EV affordability concerns among consumers.

However, Ofgem acknowledges the need for substantial investment to finance network upgrades, repairs, and the clean energy transition. To this end, they are considering incorporating an "investability" metric, recognizing how big battery rule changes can erode confidence elsewhere, in the next price controls for transmission networks, ensuring these entities remain attractive for equity fundraising without overburdening consumers.

This proposal, while welcomed by the industry, has drawn criticism from consumer advocacy groups like Citizens Advice, who fear it could contribute to unfairly high bills. With energy bills already hitting record highs, public trust in the net-zero transition hinges on ensuring affordability.

High debt levels and potential credit rating downgrades further complicate the picture, potentially impacting companies' ability to raise investment funds. Ofgem is exploring measures to address this, such as stricter debt structure reporting requirements for regional distribution companies.

Lawrence Slade, CEO of the Energy Networks Association, emphasizes the critical role of investment in achieving net zero. He highlights the need for "bold" policies and regulations that balance ambitious goals with investor confidence and ensure efficient resource allocation, drawing on B.C.'s power supply challenges as a cautionary example.

The challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between attracting investment, ensuring network resilience, and maintaining affordable energy bills. As Andy Manning from Citizens Advice warns, "Without public confidence, net zero won't be delivered."

The UK's journey to net zero hinges on navigating this complex landscape. By carefully calibrating regulations, fostering investor confidence, and prioritizing affordability, the country can ensure its electricity grid is not just robust enough to power heated swimming pools, but also a thriving green economy for all.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Estonia energy prices 2021 show sharp electricity hikes versus the EU average, mixed natural gas trends, kWh tariffs on Nord Pool spiking, and VAT, taxes, and support measures shaping household bills.

Key Points

EU-high electricity growth, early gas dip, then Nord Pool spikes; taxes, VAT, and subsidies shaped energy bills.

✅ Electricity up 7% on year; EU average 2.8% in H1 2021.

✅ Gas fell 1% in H1; later spiked with global market.

✅ VAT, taxes, excise and aid impacted household costs.

Estonia saw one of the highest rates in growth of electricity prices in the first half of 2021, compared with the same period in key trends in 2020 across Europe. These figures were posted before the more recent, record level of electricity and natural gas prices; the latter actually dropped slightly in Estonia in the first half of the year.

While electricity prices rose 7 percent on year in the first half of 2021 in Estonia, the average for the EU as a whole, where energy prices drove inflation across the bloc, stood at 2.8 percent over the same period, BNS reports.

Hungary (€10 per 100 Kwh) and Bulgaria (€10.20 per 100 Kwh) saw the lowest electricity prices EU-wide, while at €31.9 per KWH, Germany's power prices posted the most expensive rate, while Denmark, Belgium and Ireland also had high prices, in excess of €25 per Kwh.

Slovenia saw the highest electricity price rise, at 15 percent, and even the United States' electricity prices saw their steepest rise in decades during the same era, while Estonia was in third place, joint with Romania at 7 percent as noted, and behind Poland (8 percent).

Lithuania, on the other hand, experienced the third highest electricity price fall over the first half of 2021, compared with the same period in 2020, at 6 percent, behind only Cyprus (7 percent) and the Netherlands (10 percent, largely due to a tax cut).

Urmas Reinsalu: VAT on electricity, gas and heating needs to be lowered
The EU average price of electricity was €21.9 percent per Kwh, with taxes and excise accounting for 39 percent of this, even as prices in Spain surged across the day-ahead market.

Estonia has also seen severe electricity price rises in the second half of the year so far, with records set and then promptly broken several times earlier in October, while an Irish electricity provider raised prices amid similar pressures, and a support package for low income households rolled out for the winter season (October to March next year). The price on the Nord Pool market as of €95.01 per Kwh; a day earlier it had stood at €66.21 per Kwh, while on October 19 the price was €140.68 per Kwh.

Gas prices
Natural gas prices to household, meanwhile, dropped in Estonia over the same period, at a sharper rate (1 percent) than the EU average (0.5 percent), according to Eurostat.

Gas prices across the EU were lowest in Lithuania (€2.8 per 100 Kwh) and highest in the Netherlands (€9.6 per KWH), while the highest growth was seen in Denmark (19 percent), in the first half of 2021.

Natural gas prices dropped in 20 member states, however, with the largest drop again coming in Lithuania (23 percent).

The average price of natural gas EU-side in the first half of 2021 was €6.4, and taxes and excise duties accounted on average for 36 percent of the total.

The second half of the year has seen steep gas price rises in Estonia, largely the result of increases on the world market, though European gas benchmarks later fell to pre-Ukraine war levels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News