Mozambique steps up energy development

ACCC energy underwriting guarantee proposes government-backed certainty for new generation, cutting electricity prices and supporting gas, pumped hydro, renewables, batteries, and potentially coal-fired power, addressing market failure without direct subsidies.

Key Points

A tech-neutral, government-backed plan underwriting new generation revenue to increase certainty and cut power prices.

✅ Government guarantee provides a revenue floor for new generators.

✅ Technology neutral: coal, gas, renewables, pumped hydro, batteries.

✅ Intended to reduce bills by up to $400 and address market failure.

Australian Taxpayers won't directly fund any new power plants despite some Coalition MPs seizing on a new report to call for a coal-fired power station.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recommended the government give financial certainty to new power plants, guaranteeing energy will be bought at a cheap price if it can't be sold, as part of an electricity market plan to avoid threats to supply.

It's part of a bid to cut up to $400 a year from average household power prices.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the finance proposal had merit, but he ruled out directly funding specific types of power generation.

"We are not in the business of subsidising one technology or another," he told reporters in Queensland today.

"We've done enough of that. Frankly, there's been too much of that."

Renewable subsidies, designed in the 1990s to make solar and wind technology more affordable, have worked and will end in 2020.

Some Coalition MPs claim the ACCC's recommendation to underwrite power generation is vindication for their push to build new coal-fired power plants.

But ACCC chair Rod Sims said no companies had proposed building new coal plants - instead they're trying to build new gas projects, pumped hydro or renewable projects.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Mr Turnbull was offering solutions years away, having overseen a rise in power prices over the past year.

"You don't just go down to K-Mart and get a coal-fired power station off the shelf," Mr Shorten told reporters, admitting he had not read the ACCC report.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the recommendation to underwrite new power generators had a lot of merit, as it would address a market failure highlighted by AEMO warnings about reduced reserves.

"What they're saying is the government needs to step in here to provide some sort of assurance," Mr Frydenberg told 9NEWS today.

He said that could include coal, gas, renewable energy or battery storage.

Deputy Nationals leader Bridget McKenzie said science should determine which technology would get the best outcomes for power bills, with a scrapping coal report suggesting it can be costly.

Mr Turnbull said there was strong support for the vast majority of the ACCC's 56 recommendations, but the government would carefully consider the report, which sets out a blueprint to cut electricity bills by 25 percent.

Acting Greens leader Adam Bandt said Australia should exit coal-fired power in favour of renewable energy to cut pollution.

In contrast, Canada has seen the Stop the Shock campaign advocate a return to coal power in some provinces.

The Australian Energy Council, which represents 21 major energy companies, said the government should consult on changes to avoid "unintended consequences".

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.

Key Points

Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.

Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.

Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.

Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.

$10B more than initial estimate
On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.

Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.

But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.

And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.

Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.

Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.

Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.

Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.

The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.

“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy. 

There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.

A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.

Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.

Cost of cancelling the project
The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.

That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.

A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation. 

The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.

“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.

"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.

"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."

The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.

Arguments against Site C
While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.

In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.

"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.

"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.

"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."

Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.

“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”

Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.

At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.

“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.

She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.

Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.

They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.

In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake." 

According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.

Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.

The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement. 

Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.

Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.

One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nova Scotia Clean Power Plan 2030 pivots from the Atlantic Loop, scaling wind and solar, leveraging Muskrat Falls via the Maritime Link, adding battery storage and transmission upgrades to decarbonize grid and retire coal.

Key Points

Nova Scotia's 2030 roadmap to replace coal with wind, solar, hydro imports, storage, and grid upgrades.

✅ 1,000 MW onshore wind to supply 50% by 2030

✅ Battery storage sites and New Brunswick transmission upgrades

✅ Continued Muskrat Falls imports via Maritime Link

Nova Scotia is abandoning the proposed Atlantic Loop in its plan to decarbonize its electrical grid by 2030 amid broader discussions about independent grid planning nationwide, Natural Resources and Renewables Minister Tory Rushton has announced.

The province unveiled its clean power plan calling for 30 per cent more wind power and five per cent more solar energy in the Nova Scotia power grid over the coming years. Nova Scotia's plan relies on continued imports of hydroelectricity from the Muskrat Falls project in Labrador via the Emera-owned Maritime Link.

Right now Nova Scotia generates 60 per cent of its electricity by burning fossil fuels, mostly coal, and some increased use of biomass has also factored into the mix. Nova Scotia Power must close its coal plants by 2030 when 80 per cent of electricity must come from renewable sources in order reduce greenhouse gas emissions causing climate changes.

Critics have urged reducing biomass use in electricity generation across the province.

The clean power plan calls for an additional 1,000 megawatts of onshore wind by 2030 which would then generate 50 per cent of the the province's electricity, while also advancing tidal energy in the Bay of Fundy as a complementary source.    

"We're taking the things already know and can capitalize on while we build them here in Nova Scotia," said Rushton, "More importantly, we're doing it at a lower rate so the ratepayers of Nova Scotia aren't going to bear the brunt of a piece of equipment that's designed and built and staying in Quebec."

The province says it can meet its green energy targets without importing Quebec hydro through the Atlantic loop. It would have brought hydroelectric power from Quebec into New Brunswick and Nova Scotia via upgraded transmission links. But the government said the cost is prohibitive, jumping to $9 billion from nearly $3 billion three years ago with no guarantee of a secure supply of power from Quebec.

"The loop is not viable for 2030. It is not necessary to achieve our goal," said David Miller, the provincial clean energy director. 

Miller said the cost of $250 to $300 per megawatt hour was five times higher than domestic wind supply.

Some of the provincial plan includes three new battery storage sites and expanding the transmission link with New Brunswick. Both were Nova Scotia Power projects paused by the company after the Houston government imposed a cap on the utility's rate increased in the fall of 2022.

The province said building the 345-kilovolt transmission line between Truro, N.S., and Salisbury, N.B., and an extension to the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, as well as aligning with NB Power deals for Quebec electricity underway, would enable greater access to energy markets.

Miller says Nova Scotia Power has revived both.

Nova Scotia Power did not comment on the new plan, but Rushton spoke for the company.

"All indications I've had is Nova Scotia Power is on board for what is taking place here today," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Climate Alliance 100% Renewables 2035 accelerates clean energy, electrification, and decarbonization, replacing coal and gas with wind, solar, and storage to cut air pollution, lower energy bills, create jobs, and advance environmental justice.

Key Points

A state-level target for alliance members to meet all electricity demand with renewable energy by 2035.

✅ 100% RES can meet rising demand from electrification

✅ Major health gains from reduced SO2, NOx, and particulates

✅ Jobs grow, energy burdens fall, climate resilience improves

The Union of Concerned Scientists joined with COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, to better understand the feasibility and implications of leadership states meeting 100 percent of their electricity needs with renewable energy by 2035, a target reflected in federal clean electricity goals under discussion today.

We focused on 24 member states of the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to the goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. We analyzed two main scenarios: business as usual versus 100 percent renewable electricity standards, in line with many state clean energy targets now in place.

Our analysis shows that:

Climate Alliance states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035, as independent assessments of zero-emissions feasibility suggest. This holds true even with strong increases in demand due to the electrification of transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

To ensure an equitable transition, states should broaden access to clean energy technologies and decision making to include environmental justice and fossil fuel-dependent communitieswhile directly phasing out coal and gas plants.

Demands for climate action surround us. Every day brings news of devastating "this is not normal" extreme weather: record-breaking heat waves, precipitation, flooding, wildfires. To build resilience and mitigate the worst impacts of the climate crisis requires immediate action to reduce heat-trapping emissions and transition to renewable energy, including practical decarbonization strategies adopted by states.

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables explores actions at one critical level: how leadership states can address climate change by reducing heat-trapping emissions in key sectors of the economy as well as by considering the impacts of our energy choices. A collaboration of the Union of Concerned Scientists and local environmental justice groups COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, with contributions from the national Initiative for Energy Justice, assessed the potential to accelerate the use of renewable energy dramatically through state-level renewable electricity standards (RESs), major drivers of clean energy in recent decades. In addition, the partners worked with Greenlink Analytics, an energy research organization, to assess how RESs most directly affect people's lives, such as changes in public health, jobs, and energy bills for households.

Focusing on 24 members of the United States Climate Alliance (USCA), the study assesses the implications of meeting 100 percent of electricity consumption in these states, including examples like Rhode Island's 100% by 2030 plan that inform policy design, with renewable energy in the near term. The alliance is a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to reducing heat-trapping emissions consistent with the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.[1]

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables looks at three types of results from a transition to 100 percent RES policies: improvements in public health from decreasing the use of coal and gas2 power plants; net job creation from switching to more labor-oriented clean energy; and reduced household energy bills from using cleaner sources of energy. The study assumes a strong push to electrify transportation and heating to address harmful emissions from the current use of fossil fuels in these sectors. Our core policy scenario does not focus on electricity generation itself, nor does it mandate retiring coal, gas, and nuclear power plants or assess new policies to drive renewable energy in non-USCA states.

Our analysis shows that:

USCA states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035 even with strong increases in demand due to electrifying transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

Renewable electricity standards must be paired with policies that address not only electricity consumption but also electricity generation, including modern grid infrastructure upgrades that enable higher renewable shares, both to transition away from fossil fuels more quickly and to ensure an equitable transition in which all communities experience the benefits of a clean energy economy.

Currently, the states in this analysis meet their electricity needs with differing mixes of electricity sourcesfossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables. Yet across the states, the study shows significant declines in fossil fuel use from transitioning to clean electricity; the use of solar and wind powerthe dominant renewablesgrows substantially:

In the study's "No New Policy" scenario"business as usual"coal and gas generation stay largely at current levels over the next two decades. Electricity generation from wind and solar grows due to both current policies and lowest costs.

In a "100% RES" scenario, each USCA state puts in place a 100 percent renewable electricity standard. Gas generation falls, although some continues for export to non-USCA states. Coal generation essentially disappears by 2040. Wind and solar generation combined grow to seven times current levels, and three times as much as in the No New Policy scenario.

A focus on meeting in-state electricity consumption in the 100% RES scenario yields important outcomes. Reductions in electricity from coal and gas plants in the USCA states reduce power plant pollution, including emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. By 2040, this leads to 6,000 to 13,000 fewer premature deaths than in the No New Policy scenario, as well as 140,000 fewer cases of asthma exacerbation and 700,000 fewer lost workdays. The value of the additional public health benefits in the USCA states totals almost $280 billion over the two decades. In a more detailed analysis of three USCA statesMassachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesotathe 100% RES scenario leads to almost 200,000 more added jobs in building and installing new electric generation capacity than the No New Policy scenario.

The 100% RES scenario also reduces average energy burdens, the portion of household income spent on energy. Even considering household costs solely for electricity and gas, energy burdens in the 100% RES scenario are at or below those in the No New Policy scenario in each USCA state in most or all years. The average energy burden across those states declines from 3.7 percent of income in 2020 to 3.0 percent in 2040 in the 100% RES scenario, compared with 3.3 percent in 2040 in the No New Policy scenario.

Decreasing the use of fossil fuels through increasing the use of renewables and accelerating electrification reduces emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), with implications for climate, public health, and economies. Annual CO2 emissions from power plants in USCA states decrease 58 percent from 2020 to 2040 in the 100% RES scenario compared with 12 percent in the No New Policy scenario.

The study also reveals gaps to be filled beyond eliminating fossil fuel pollution from communities, such as the persistence of gas generation to sell power to neighboring states, reflecting barriers to a fully renewable grid that policy must address. Further, it stresses the importance of policies targeting just and equitable outcomes in the move to renewable energy.

Moving away from fossil fuels in communities most affected by harmful air pollution should be a top priority in comprehensive energy policies. Many communities continue to bear far too large a share of the negative impacts from decades of siting the infrastructure for the nation's fossil fuel power sector in or near marginalized neighborhoods. This pattern will likely persist if the issue is not acknowledged and addressed. State policies should mandate a priority on reducing emissions in communities overburdened by pollution and avoiding investments inconsistent with the need to remove heat-trapping emissions and air pollution at an accelerated rate. And communities must be centrally involved in decisionmaking around any policies and rules that affect them directly, including proposals to change electricity generation, both to retire fossil fuel plants and to build the renewable energy infrastructure.

Key recommendations in On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables address moving away from fossil fuels, increasing investment in renewable energy, and reducing CO2 emissions. They aim to ensure that communities most affected by a history of environmental racism and pollution share in the benefits of the transition: cleaner air, equitable access to good-paying jobs and entrepreneurship alternatives, affordable energy, and the resilience that renewable energy, electrification, energy efficiency, and energy storage can provide. While many communities can benefit from the transition, strong justice and equity policies will avoid perpetuating inequities in the electricity system. State support to historically underserved communities for investing in solar, energy efficiency, energy storage, and electrification will encourage local investment, community wealth-building, and the resilience benefits the transition to renewable energy can provide.

A national clean electricity standard and strong pollution standards should complement state action to drive swift decarbonization and pollution reduction across the United States. Even so, states are well positioned to simultaneously address climate change and decades of inequities in the power system. While it does not substitute for much-needed national and international leadership, strong state action is crucial to achieving an equitable clean energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News