B.C. consumers should pay more for power

Ireland Coal-Free Electricity Record: EirGrid reports 25 days without coal on the all-island grid, as wind power, renewables, and natural gas dominated generation, cutting CO2 emissions, with Moneypoint sidelined by market competitiveness.

Key Points

It is a 25-day period when the grid used no coal, relying on gas and renewables to reduce CO2 emissions.

✅ 25 days coal-free between April 11 and May 7

✅ Gas 60%, renewables 30% of generation mix

✅ Eurostat: 6.8% drop in Ireland's CO2 emissions

The island of Ireland has gone a record length of time without using coal-fired electricity generation on its power system, Britain's week-long coal-free run providing a recent comparator, Eirgrid has confirmed.

The all-island grid operated without coal between April 11th and May 7th – a total of 25 days, it confirmed. This is the longest period of time the grid has operated without coal since the all-island electricity market was introduced in 2007, echoing Britain's record coal-free stretch seen recently.

Ireland’s largest generating station, Moneypoint in Co Clare, uses coal, with recent price spikes in Ireland fueling concerns about dispatchable capacity, as do some of the larger generation sites in Northern Ireland.

The analysis coincides with the European statistics agency, Eurostat publishing figures showing annual CO2 emissions in Ireland fell by 6.8 per cent last year; partly due to technical problems at Moneypoint.

Over the 25-day period, gas made up 60 per cent of the fuel mix, while renewable energy, mainly wind, accounted for 30 per cent, echoing UK wind surpassing coal in 2016 across the market. Coal-fired generation was available during this period but was not as competitive as other methods.

EirGrid group chief executive Mark Foley said this was “a really positive development” as coal was the most carbon intense of all electricity sources, with its share hitting record lows in the UK in recent years.

“We are acutely aware of the challenges facing the island in terms of meeting our greenhouse gas emission targets, mindful that low-carbon generation stalled in the UK in 2019, through the deployment of more renewable energy on the grid,” he added.

Last year 33 per cent of the island’s electricity came from renewable energy sources, German renewables surpassing coal and nuclear offering a parallel milestone, a new record. Coal accounted for 9 per cent of electricity generation, down from 12.9 per cent in 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Clean Power Call 2024 seeks utility-scale renewable energy, including wind and solar, to meet rising electricity demand, advance clean goals, expand grid, and support Indigenous participation through competitive procurement and equity opportunities.

Key Points

BC Hydro's 2024 bid to add zero-emission wind and solar to meet rising demand and support Indigenous equity.

✅ Competitive procurement for utility-scale wind and solar

✅ Targets 3,000 GWh new greenfield by fiscal 2029

✅ Encourages Indigenous ownership and equity stakes

The Government of British Columbia (the Government or Province) has announced that BC Hydro would be moving forward with a call for new sources of 100 percent clean, renewable emission-free electricity, notably including wind and solar, even as nuclear power remains a divisive option among residents. The call, expected to launch in spring 2024, is BC Hydro's first call for power in 15 years and will seek power from larger scale projects.

Over the past decade, British Columbia has experienced a growing economy and population as well as a move by the housing, business and transportation sectors towards electrification, with industrial demand from LNG facilities also influencing load growth. As the Government highlighted in their recent announcement, the number of registered light-duty electric vehicles in British Columbia increased from 5,000 in 2016 to more than 100,000 in 2023. Zero-emission vehicles represented 18.1 percent of new light-duty passenger vehicles sold in British Columbia in 2022, the highest percentage for any province or territory.

Ultimately, the Province now expects electricity demand in British Columbia to increase by 15 percent by 2030. BC Hydro elaborated on the growing need for electricity in their recent Signposts Update to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC), and noted additions such as new generating stations coming online to support capacity. BC Hydro implemented its Signposts Update process to monitor whether the "Near-term actions" established in its 2021 Integrated Resource Plan continue to be appropriate and align with the changing circumstances in electricity demand. Those actions outline how BC Hydro will meet the electricity needs of its customers over the next 20 years. The original Near-term actions focused on demand-side management and not incremental electricity production.

In its Update, BC Hydro emphasized that increased use of electricity and decreased supply, along with episodes of importing out-of-province fossil power during tight periods, has advanced the forecast of the province's need for additional renewable energy by three years. Accordingly, BC Hydro has updated its 2021 Integrated Resource Plan to, among other things:

accelerate the timing of several Near-term actions on energy efficiency, demand response, industrial load curtailment, electricity purchase agreement renewals and utility-scale batteries; and
add new Near-term actions for BC Hydro to acquire an additional 3,000 GWh per year of new clean, renewable energy from greenfield facilities in the province able to achieve commercial operation as early as fiscal 2029, as well as approximately 700 GWh per year of new clean, renewable energy from existing facilities prior to fiscal 2029.
The Province's predictions align with Canada Energy Regulator's (CER) "Canada's Energy Future 2023" flagship report (Report) released on June 20, 2023. The Report, which looks at Canadians' possible energy futures, includes two long-term scenarios modelled on Canada reaching net-zero by 2050. Under either scenario, the electricity sector is predicted to serve as the cornerstone of the net-zero energy system, with examples such as Hydro-Quebec's decarbonization strategy illustrating this shift as it transforms and expands to accommodate increasing electricity use.

Key Details of the Call
Though not finalized, the call for power will be a competitive process, with the exact details to be designed by BC Hydro and the Province, incorporating input from the recently-formed BC Hydro Task Force made up of Indigenous communities, industry and stakeholders. This is a shift from previous calls for power, which operated as a continuous-intake program with a standing offer at a fixed rate, after projects like the Siwash Creek project were left in limbo.

Drawing on advice from Indigenous and external energy experts, the Province seeks to advance Indigenous ownership and equity interest opportunities in the electricity sector, potentially with minimum requirements for Indigenous participation in new projects to be a condition of the competitive process. The Province has also committed $140 million to the B.C. Indigenous Clean Energy Initiative (BCICEI) to support Indigenous-led power projects and their ability to respond to future electricity demand, facilitating their ability to compete in the call for power, despite their smaller size.

BC Hydro expects to initiate the call in spring 2024, with the goal of acquiring new sources of electricity as early as 2028, even as clean electricity affordability features prominently in Ontario's election discourse.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

California Utility Spending Bill scrutinizes how ratepayer funds are used by utilities, targeting lobbying, advertising, wildfire prevention cost pass-throughs, and CPUC oversight to curb high electricity bills and increase accountability and transparency statewide.

Key Points

Legislation restricting utilities from using ratepayer money for lobbying and ads, with stronger CPUC oversight.

✅ Bans ratepayer-funded lobbying and political advertising

✅ Expands prohibited utility communications and influence spending

✅ Aims to curb bills, boost transparency, and CPUC accountability

California's legislators are about to vote on a bill that would impose stricter regulations on how utility companies spend the money they collect from ratepayers. This legislation directly responds to the growing discontent among Californians who are already grappling with high electricity bills, as Californians ask why electricity prices are soaring amid wildfire prevention efforts.

Consumer rights groups have been vehemently critical of how utilities have been allocating customer funds, amid growing calls for regulatory action from state officials. They allege that a substantial portion of this money is being funnelled into lobbying efforts and advertising campaigns that yield no direct benefits for the customers themselves.

The proposed bill would significantly broaden the definition of what constitutes prohibited advertising and political influence activities on the part of utility companies, separate from income-based fixed electricity charges proposals that affect rate design. This would effectively restrict the ways in which utilities can utilize customer funds for such purposes.

While consumer advocacy groups have favored the legislation, it has drawn opposition from utility companies and some labor unions, as lawmakers weigh overturning income-based utility charges in parallel debates. Opponents contend that it would hinder utilities' ability to communicate effectively with their customers and advocate for their interests. Additionally, they express concerns that the bill could result in job losses within the utility sector.

The vote on the bill is expected to take place on Monday. The outcome of the vote is uncertain, but it is sure to be a closely watched development for Californians struggling with the burden of high electricity bills, with many wondering about major changes to their electric bills in the near term.

California's Electricity Rates: A Burden for Residents

A recent report by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) revealed that the average Californian household spends a significantly higher amount on electricity compared to the national average. This disparity in electricity rates can be attributed to a number of factors, including the financial costs associated with wildfire prevention measures, investments in renewable energy infrastructure, and maintenance of aging electrical grids, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid.

Examples of Utility Company Spending that Raise Concerns

Consumer rights groups have specifically highlighted instances where utility companies have used customer money to fund lavish executive compensation packages, sponsor professional sports teams, and finance political campaigns. They argue that these expenditures do not provide any tangible benefits to ratepayers and should not be funded through customer bills.

The Need for Accountability and Prioritization

Proponents of the bill believe that the legislation is necessary to ensure that utility companies are held accountable for how they spend customer funds. They believe that the stricter regulations would compel utilities to prioritize investments that directly improve the quality and reliability of electricity services for Californians, alongside discussions of income-based flat-fee utility bills that could reshape rate structures.

The impending vote on the bill underscores the ongoing tension between the need for reliable electricity services and the desire to keep utility rates affordable for Californians. The outcome of the vote is likely to have a significant impact on how utility companies operate in the state and how much Californians pay for their electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Off-Peak Electricity Rate offers 8.2 cents per kWh for 24 hours, supporting Time-of-Use and Tiered Regulated Price Plan customers, including residential, small business, and farms, under Ontario Energy Board guidelines during temporary relief.

Key Points

A temporary 8.2 cents per kWh all-day price for RPP customers, covering TOU and Tiered users across Ontario.

✅ Applies 24 hours daily at 8.2 cents per kWh for 21 days

✅ Covers residential, small business, and farm RPP customers

✅ Valid for TOU and Tiered plans set by the Ontario Energy Board

 The Ontario government has announced electricity relief with electricity prices set at the off-peak price of 8.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, 24 hours per day for 21 days starting January 18, 2022, until the end of day February 7, 2022, for all Regulated Price Plan customers. The off-peak rate will apply automatically to residential, small businesses and farms who pay Time-of-Use or Tiered prices set by the Ontario Energy Board.

This rate relief includes extended off-peak rates to support small businesses, as well as workers and families spending more time at home while the province is in Modified Step Two of the Roadmap to Reopen.

As part of our mandate, we set the rates that your utility charges for the electricity you use in your home or small business. These rates appear on the Electricity line of your bill, and we administer protections such as disconnection moratoriums for residential customers. We also set the Delivery rates that cover the cost to deliver electricity to most residential and small business customers.

Types of electricity rates

For residential and small business customers that buy electricity from their utility, there are two different types of rates (also called prices here), and Ontario also provides stable electricity pricing for larger users. The Ontario Energy Board sets both once a year on November 1:

Time-of-Use (TOU)

With TOU prices, the price depends on when you use electricity, including options like ultra-low overnight pricing that encourage off-peak use.

There are three TOU price periods:

• Off-peak, when demand for electricity is lowest and new offerings like the Ultra-Low Overnight plan can encourage shifting usage. Ontario households use most of their electricity – nearly two thirds of it – during off-peak hours.
• Mid-peak, when demand for electricity is moderate. These periods are during the daytime, but not the busiest times of day, and utilities like BC Hydro are exploring similar TOU structures as well.
• On-peak, when demand for electricity is generally higher. These are the busier times of day – generally when people are cooking, starting up their computers and running heaters or air conditioners.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Duke Energy zero-coal 2050 plan outlines a decarbonized energy mix, aligning with Paris goals, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, driven by investor pressure, shifting to natural gas, extending nuclear power, and phasing out coal.

Key Points

An investor-driven scenario to end coal by 2050, shift to natural gas, extend nuclear plants, and manage climate risk.

✅ Eliminates coal from the generation mix by 2050

✅ Prioritizes natural gas transitions without CCS breakthroughs

✅ Extends nuclear plant licenses to limit carbon emissions

One of America’s largest utility companies, Duke Energy, is set to release a report later this month that sketches a drastically changed electricity mix in a carbon-constrained future.

The big picture: Duke is the latest energy company to commit to releasing a report about climate change in response to investor pressure, echoing shifts such as Europe's oil majors going electric across the sector, conveyed by non-binding but symbolically important shareholder resolutions. Duke provides electricity to more than seven million customers in the Carolinas, the Midwest and Florida.

Gritty details: The report is expected to find that coal, currently 33% of Duke’s mix, gone entirely from its portfolio by 2050 in a future scenario where the world has taken steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and where global coal-fired electricity use is falling markedly, to a level consistent with keeping global temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius. That’s the big ambition of the 2015 Paris climate deal, but the current commitments aren’t close to reaching that.

What they're saying: “What’s difficult about this is we are trying to overlay what we understand currently about technology,” Lynn Good, Duke CEO, told Axios in an interview on the sidelines of a major energy conference here.

She went on to say that this scenario of zero coal by 2050 doesn’t assume any breakthroughs in technology that captures carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. “We don’t see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas.”

Good also stressed the benefits of its several nuclear power plants, highlighting the role of sustaining U.S. nuclear power in decarbonization, which emit no carbon emissions. She said Duke isn’t considering investing in new nuclear plants, but plans to seek federal relicensing of current plants.

“If I turn them off, the resource that would replace them today is natural gas, so carbon will go up,” Good said. “Our objective is to continue to keep those plants as long as possible.”

What’s next: A spokesman said the other details of their 2050 scenario estimates will be available when the report is officially released by month’s end.

Axios reports that Duke Energy will release a report later this month that detail the utility's efforts to mitigate climate change risks and plan carbon-free electricity investments across its operations. The report includes a scenario that eliminates coal entirely from the company's power mix by 2050. Coal currently makes up about a third of Duke's generation.

Duke CEO Lynn Good told the news outlet the scenario ending coal-fired generation assumes no technological advances in emissions capture, seemingly leaving open the possibility.

Last year, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded one in four of the remaining operating coal-fired plants in the U.S. are slated for closure or conversion to natural gas, amid falling power-sector carbon emissions across the country. Duke's report is expected to be released by the end of the month.

Duke's report on its carbon plans comes at the behest of shareholders, a trend utility companies have seen growing among investors who are increasingly concerned about companies' sustainability and their financial exposure to climate policy.

Last year, a majority of shareholders of Pennsylvania utility PPL Corp. called on company management to publish a report on how climate change policies and technological innovations will affect the company's bottom line. Almost 60% of shareholders voted in favor of the non-binding proposal.

The vote, reportedly a first for the power sector, followed a similar decision by shareholders of Occidental Petroleum, which was supported by about 66% of shareholders.

Duke's Good told Axios that right now the utility does not see the coal technology on the horizon that would keep it operating plants. “We don't see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas," Good said. However, it does not mean the utility is making near-term efforts to erase coal from its power mix. However, some utilities are taking those steps as they prepare for en energy landscape with more carbon regulations.

In addition to the 25% of coal plants heading for closure or conversion, the UCS report also said that another 17% of the nation’s operating coal plants are uneconomic compared with natural gas-fired generation, and could face retirement soon. But there is plenty of ongoing research into "clean coal" possibilities, and the federal government has expressed an interest in smaller, modular coal units.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News