Ontario's power supply outlook positive

Bruce C Project advances Ontario clean energy with NRCan funding for nuclear reactors, impact assessment, licensing, and Indigenous engagement, delivering reliable baseload power and low-carbon electricity through pre-development studies at Bruce Power.

Key Points

A proposed nuclear build at Bruce Power, backed by NRCan funding for studies, licensing, and impact assessment to expand clean power.

✅ Up to $50M NRCan support for pre-development

✅ Focus: feasibility, impact assessment, licensing

✅ Early Indigenous and community engagement

Canada's clean energy landscape received a significant boost recently with the announcement of federal funding for the Bruce Power's Bruce C Project. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) pledged up to $50 million to support pre-development work for this potential new nuclear build on the Bruce Power site. This collaboration between federal and provincial governments signifies a shared commitment to a cleaner energy future for Ontario and Canada.

The Bruce C Project, if it comes to fruition, has the potential to be a significant addition to Ontario's clean energy grid. The project envisions constructing new nuclear reactors at the existing Bruce Power facility, located on the shores of Lake Huron. Nuclear energy is a reliable source of clean electricity generation, as evidenced by Bruce Power's operating record during the pandemic, producing minimal greenhouse gas emissions during operation.

The funding announced by NRCan will be used to conduct crucial pre-development studies. These studies will assess the feasibility of the project from various angles, including technical considerations, environmental impact assessments, and Indigenous and community engagement, informed by lessons from a major refurbishment that required a Bruce reactor to be taken offline, to ensure thorough planning. Obtaining a license to prepare the site and completing an impact assessment are also key objectives for this pre-development phase.

This financial support from the federal government aligns with both national and provincial clean energy goals. The "Powering Canada Forward" plan, spearheaded by NRCan, emphasizes building a clean, reliable, and affordable electricity system across the country. Ontario's "Powering Ontario's Growth" plan echoes these objectives, focusing on investment options, such as the province's first SMR project, to electrify the province's economy and meet its growing clean energy demand.

"Ontario has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world and the nuclear industry is leading the way," stated Mike Rencheck, President and CEO of Bruce Power. He views this project as a prime example of collaboration between federal and provincial entities, along with the private sector, where recent manufacturing contracts underscore industry capacity.

Nuclear energy, however, remains a topic of debate. While proponents highlight its role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing reliable baseload power, opponents raise concerns about nuclear waste disposal and potential safety risks. The pre-development studies funded by NRCan will need to thoroughly address these concerns as part of the project's evaluation.

Transparency and open communication with local communities and Indigenous groups will also be crucial for the project's success. Early engagement activities facilitated by the funding will allow for open dialogue and address any potential concerns these stakeholders might have.

The Bruce C Project is still in its early stages. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will provide valuable data to determine the project's viability. If the project moves forward, it has the potential to significantly contribute to Ontario's clean energy future, while also creating jobs and economic benefits for local communities and suppliers.

However, the project faces challenges. Public perception of nuclear energy and the lengthy regulatory process are hurdles that will need to be addressed, as debates around the Pickering B refurbishment have highlighted in Ontario. Additionally, ensuring cost-effectiveness and demonstrating the project's long-term economic viability will be critical for securing broader support.

The next few years will be crucial for the Bruce C Project. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will be instrumental in determining its feasibility. If successful, this project could be a game-changer for Ontario's clean energy future, building on the province's Pickering life extensions to strengthen system adequacy, offering a reliable, low-carbon source of electricity for the province and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.

Key Points

Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.

✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh

✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels

✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions

The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.

It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.

The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.

And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.

The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.

It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.

These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.

In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.

It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.

Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.

They also have to guess a random number.

The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.

Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption
At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.

As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.

The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.

"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.

And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.

The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.

Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.

The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.

What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.

We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.

They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.

And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.

All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.

"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."

The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.

"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."

"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."

He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.

This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.

Rising price of bitcoin graphic
And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.

The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He says Bitcoin is neither.

"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."

What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.

So, I want to know: is the bubble about to burst?

"That's my guess," says Prof Rogoff and pauses.

"But I really couldn't tell you when."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Net Zero Grid Investment will fuel electrification, renewable energy buildout, EV adoption, and grid modernization, boosting utilities, solar, and storage, while policy, IRA incentives, and transmission upgrades drive reliability and long-term rate base growth.

Key Points

Funding to electrify sectors and modernize the grid, scaling renewables, EVs, and storage to meet 2045 net zero goals.

✅ $370B over 22 years to meet 2045 net zero target

✅ Utilities lead gains via grid modernization and rate base growth

✅ EVs, solar, storage scale; IRA credits offset costs

$370 billion: That’s the investment Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro says is needed for California’s power grid to meet the state’s “net zero” goal for CO2 emissions by 2045.

Getting there will require replacing fossil fuels with electricity in transportation, HVAC systems for buildings and industrial processes. Combined with population growth and data demand potentially augmented by artificial intelligence, that adds up to an 82 percent increase in electricity demand over 22 years, or 3 percent annually, and a potential looming shortage if buildout lags.

California’s plans also call for phasing out fossil fuel generation in the state, despite ongoing dependence on fossil power during peaks. And presumably, its last nuclear plant—PG&E Corp’s (PCG) Diablo Canyon—will be eventually be shuttered as well. So getting there also means trebling the state’s renewable energy generation and doubling usage of rooftop solar.

Assuming this investment is made, it’s relatively easy to put together a list of beneficiaries. Electric vehicles hit 20 percent market share in the state in Q2, even as pandemic-era demand shifts complicate load forecasting. And while competition from manufacturers has increased, leading manufacturers like Tesla TSLA -3% Inc (TSLA) can look forward to rising sales for some time—though that’s more than priced in for Elon Musk’s company at 65 times expected next 12 months earnings.

In the past year, California regulators have dialed back net metering through pricing changes affecting compensation, a subsidy previously paying rooftop solar owners premium prices for power sold back to the grid. That’s hit share prices of SunPower Corp (SPWR) and Sunrun Inc (RUN) quite hard, by further undermining business plans yet to demonstrate consistent profitability.

Nonetheless, these companies too can expect robust sales growth, as global prices for solar components drop and Inflation Reduction Act tax credits at least somewhat offset higher interest rates. And the combination of IRA tax credits and U.S. tariff walls will continue to boost sales at solar manufacturers like JinkoSolar Holding (JKS).

The surest, biggest beneficiaries of California’s drive to Net Zero are the utilities, reflecting broader utility trends in grid modernization, with investment increasing earnings and dividends. And as the state’s largest pure electric company, Edison has the clearest path.

Edison is currently requesting California regulators OK recovery over a 30-year period of $2.4 billion in losses related to 2017 wildfires. Assuming a amicable decision by early next year, management can then turn its attention to upgrading the grid. That investment is expected to generate long-term rate base growth of 8 percent at year, fueling 5 to 7 percent annual earnings growth through 2028 with commensurate dividend increases.

That’s a strong value proposition Edison stock, with trades at just 14 times expected next 12 months earnings. The yield of roughly 4.4 percent at current prices was increased 5.4 percent this year and is headed for a similar boost in December.

When California deregulated electricity in 1996, it required utilities with rare exceptions to divest their power generation. As a result, Edison’s growth opportunity is 100 percent upgrading its transmission and distribution grid. And its projects can typically be proposed, sited, permitted and built in less than a year, limiting risk of cost overruns to ensure regulatory approval and strong investment returns.

Edison’s investment plan is also pretty much immune to an unlikely backtracking on Net Zero goals by the state. And the company has a cost argument as well: Dr Pizarro cites U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Transportation data to project inflation-adjusted savings of 40 percent in California’s total customer energy bills from full electrification.

There’s even a reason to believe 40 percent savings will prove conservative. Mainly, gasoline currently accounts for a bit more than half energy expenditures. And after a more than 10-year global oil and gas investment drought, supplies are likely get tighter and prices possibly much higher in coming years.

Of course, those savings will only show up after significant investment is made. At this point, no major utility system in the world runs on 100 percent renewable energy, and California’s blackout politics underscore how reliability concerns shape deployment. And the magnitude of storage technology needed to overcome intermittency in solar and wind generation is not currently available let alone affordable, though both cost and efficiency are advancing.

Taking EVs from 20 to 100 percent of California’s new vehicle sales calls for a similar leap in efficiency and cost, even with generous federal and state subsidy. And while technology to fully electrify buildings and homes is there, economically retrofitting statewide is almost certainly going to be a slog.

At the end of the day, political will is likely to be as important as future technological advance for how much of Pizarro’s $370 billion actually gets spent. And the same will be true across the U.S., with state governments and regulators still by and large calling the shots for how electricity gets generated, transmitted and distributed—as well as who pays for it and how much, even as California’s exported policies influence Western markets.

Ironically, the one state where investors don’t need to worry about renewable energy’s prospects is one of the currently reddest politically. That’s Florida, where NextEra Energy NEE +2.8% (NEE) and other utilities can dramatically cut costs to customers and boost reliability by deploying solar and energy storage.

You won’t hear management asserting it can run the Sunshine State on 100 percent renewable energy, as utilities and regulators do in some of the bluer parts of the country. But by demonstrating the cost and reliability argument for solar deployment, NextEra is also making the case why its stock is America’s highest percentage bet on renewables’ growth—particularly at a time when all things energy are unfortunately becoming increasingly, intensely political.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Energy Policy Debate centers on ERCOT and PUC directives, fossil fuels vs renewables, grid reliability, energy efficiency, battery storage, and blackout risks, shaping Texas power market rules, conservation alerts, and capacity planning.

Key Points

Policy fight over ERCOT/PUC rules weighing fossil fuels vs renewables and storage to bolster Texas grid reliability.

✅ ERCOT and PUC directives under political scrutiny

✅ Fossil fuel subsidies vs renewable incentives and storage

✅ Focus on grid reliability, efficiency, and blackout prevention

Earlier this week, Governor Abbott released a letter to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), demanding electricity market reforms that Abbott falsely claims will "increase power generation capacity and to ensure the reliability of the Texas power grid."

Unfortunately, Abbott's letter promotes polluting, unreliable fossil fuels, attacks safer clean energy options, and ignores solutions that would actually benefit everyday Texans.

"Governor Abbott, in a blatant effort to politicize Texans' energy security, wants to double down on fossil fuels, even though they were the single largest point of failure during both February's blackouts and June's energy conservation alerts," said Cyrus Reed, Interim Director & Conservation Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.

"Many of these so-called solutions were considered and rejected most recently by the Texas Legislature. Texas must focus on expanding clean and reliable renewable energy, energy efficiency, and storage capacity, as voters consider funding to modernize generation in the months ahead.

"We can little afford to repeat the same mistakes that have failed to provide enough electricity where it is needed most and cost Texans billions of dollars. Instead of advocating for evidence-based solutions, Abbott wants to be a culture warrior for coal and gas, even as he touts grid readiness amid election season, even when it results in blackouts across Texas."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News