Power authority sues city of Raton

Pickering Nuclear False Alert Investigation probes Ontario's emergency alert system after a provincewide cellphone, radio, and TV warning, assessing human error, Pelmorex safeguards, Emergency Management Ontario oversight, and communication delays.

Key Points

An Ontario probe into the erroneous Pickering nuclear alert, focusing on human error, system safeguards, and oversight.

✅ Human error during routine testing suspected

✅ Pelmorex safeguards and EMO protocols under review

✅ Two-hour all-clear delay prompts communication fixes

An investigation into a mistaken Pickering alert warning of an incident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station will be completed fairly quickly, Ontario's solicitor general said.

Sylvia Jones tapped the chief of Emergency Management Ontario to investigate how the alert warning of an unspecified problem at the facility was sent in error to cellphones, radios and TVs across the province at about 7:30 a.m. Sunday.

"It's very important for me, for the people of Ontario, to know exactly what happened on Sunday morning," said Jones. "Having said that, I do not anticipate this is going to be a long, drawn-out investigation. I want to know what happened and equally important, I want some recommendations on insurances and changes we can make to the system to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Initial observations suggest human error was responsible for the alert that was sent out during routine tests of the emergency alert, Jones said.

"This has never happened in the history of the tests that they do every day, twice a day, but I do want to know exactly all of the issues related to it, whether it was one human error or whether it was a series of things."

Martin Belanger, the director of public alerting for Pelmorex, a company that operates the alert system, said there are a number of safeguards built in, including having two separate platforms for training and live alerts.

"The software has some steps and some features built in to minimize that risk and to make sure that users will be able to know whether or not they're sending an alert through the...training platform or whether they're accessing the live system in the case of a real emergency," he said.

Only authorized users have access to the system and the province manages that, Belanger said. Once in the live system, features make the user aware of which platform they are using, with various prompts and messages requiring the user's confirmation. There is a final step that also requires the user to confirm their intent of issuing an alert to cellphones, radio and TVs, Belanger said.

On Sunday, a follow-up alert was sent to cellphones nearly two hours after the original notification, and similar grid alerts in Alberta underscore timing and public expectations.

NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns is critical of that delay, noting that ongoing utility scam warnings can further erode public trust.

"That's a long time for people to be waiting to find out what's really going on," he said. "If people lose confidence in this system, the ability to use it when there is a real emergency will be impaired. That's dangerous."

Treasury Board President Peter Bethlenfalvy, who represents the riding of Pickering-Uxbridge, said getting that alert Sunday morning was "a shock to the system," and he too wants the investigation to address the reason for the all-clear delay.

"We all have a lot of questions," he said. "I think the public has every right to know exactly what went on and we feel exactly the same way."

People in the community know the facility is safe, Bethlenfalvy said.

"We have some of the safest nuclear assets in the world -- the safest -- at 60 per cent of Ontario's electricity," he said.

A poll released Monday found that 82 per cent of Canadians are concerned about spills from nuclear reactors contaminating drinking water and 77 per cent are concerned about neighbourhood safety and security risks for those living close to nuclear plants. Oraclepoll Research surveyed 2,094 people across the country on behalf of Friends of the Earth between Jan. 2 and 12, the day of the false alert. The have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

The wording of Sunday's alert caused much initial confusion, and events like a power outage in London show how morning disruptions can amplify concern, warning residents within 10 kilometres of the plant of "an incident," though there was no "abnormal" release of radioactivity and residents didn't need to take protective steps, but emergency crews were responding.

In the event of a real emergency, the wording would be different, Jones said.

"There are a number of different alerts that are already prepared and are ready to go," she said. "We have the ability to localize it to the communities that are impacted, but because this was a test, it went provincewide."

Jones said she expects the results of the probe to be made public.

The Pickering nuclear plant has been operating since 1971, and had been scheduled to be decommissioned this year, but the former Liberal government -- and the current Progressive Conservative government -- committed to keeping it open until 2024. Decommissioning is now set to start in 2028.

It operates six CANDU reactors, generates 14 per cent of Ontario's electricity and is responsible for 4,500 jobs across the region, according to OPG, and OPG's credit rating remains stable.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Hydro One employees supported the Province of Ontario in the fight against COVID-19.

The Green party is calling on the province to use this opportunity to review its nuclear emergency response plan, including pandemic staffing contingencies, last updated in 2017 and subject to review every five years.

Toronto Mayor John Tory praised Ontario for swiftly launching an investigation, but said communication between city and provincial officials wasn't what it should have been under the circumstances.

"It was a poor showing and I think everybody involved knows that," he said. "We've got to make sure it's not repeated."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Spain Electricity Demand April 2020 saw a 17.3% year-on-year drop as COVID-19 lockdown curbed activity; renewables and wind power lifted the emission-free share, while combined cycle plants dominated islands, per REE data.

Key Points

A 17.3% y/y decline amid COVID-19 lockdown, with 47.9% renewables and wind at 21.3% of the national power mix.

✅ Mainland demand -17%; Balearic -27.6%; Canary -20.3%.

✅ Emission-free share: 49.7% on the peninsula in April.

✅ Combined cycle led islands; coal absent in Balearics.

Demand for electricity in Spain dropped by 17.3% year-on-year to an estimated 17,104 GWh in April, aligning with a 15% global daily demand dip during the pandemic, while the country’s economy slowed down under the national state of emergency and lockdown measures imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19.

According to the latest estimates by Spanish grid operator Red Electrica de Espana (REE), the decline in demand was registered across Spain’s entire national territory, similar to a 10% UK drop during lockdown. On the mainland, it decreased by 17% to 16,191 GWh, while on the Balearic and the Canary Islands it plunged by 27.6% and 20.3%, respectively.

Renewables accounted for 47.9% of the total national electricity production in April, echoing Britain’s cleanest electricity trends during lockdown. Wind power production went down 20% year-on-year to 3,730 GWh, representing a 21.3% share in the total power mix.

During April, electricity generation in the peninsula was mostly based on emission-free technologies, reflecting an accelerated power-system transition across Europe, with renewables accounting for 49.7%. Wind farms produced 3,672 GWh, 20.1% less compared to April 2019, while contributing 22% to the power mix, even as global demand later surpassed pre-pandemic levels in subsequent periods.

In the Balearic Islands, electricity demand of 323,296 MWh was for the most part met by combined cycle power plants, even as some European demand held firm in later lockdowns, which accounted for 78.3% of the generation. Renewables and emission-free technologies had a combined share of 6.4%, while coal was again absent from the local power mix, completing now four consecutive months without contributing a single MWh.

In the Canary Islands system, demand for power decreased to 558,619 MWh, even as surging demand elsewhere strained power systems across the world. Renewables and emission-free technologies made up 14.3% of the mix, while combined cycle power plants led with a 45.3% share.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

German Energy Price Brakes harness price signals in a market-based policy, cutting gas consumption, preserving industrial output, and supporting CO2 reduction, showcasing Germany's resilience and adaptation while protecting households and businesses across Europe.

Key Points

Fixed-amount subsidies preserving price signals to curb gas use, shield consumers, and sustain industrial output.

✅ Maintains incentives via market-based price signals

✅ Cuts gas consumption without distorting EU markets

✅ Protects households and industry while curbing CO2

German industry and society are once again proving much more resilient and adaptable than certain people feared. Horror scenarios of a dangerous energy rationing or a massive slump in our economy have often been bandied about. But we are nowhere near that. With a challenging year just behind us, this is good news — not only for Germany, but also for Europe, where France-Germany energy cooperation has strengthened solidarity.

Companies and households reacted swiftly to the sharp increases in energy prices, in line with momentum in the global energy transition seen across markets. They installed more efficient heating or production facilities, switched to alternatives and imported intermediate products. The results are encouraging: German households and businesses have reduced gas consumption significantly, despite recent cold weather. From the start of the war in Ukraine to mid-December industrial gas consumption in Germany was (temperature-adjusted) around 20 per cent lower than the average level for the preceding three years. Even if some firms have cut back production, especially in energy-intensive sectors, industrial output as a whole has only fallen by about 1 per cent since the start of 2022. Added to this, in a survey released by the Ifo institute in November, over a third of German companies saw the potential to reduce gas consumption further without endangering output.

Instead of imposing excessive laws and regulations, we have relied on price signals and the prudence of market participants to create the right incentives and reduce gas consumption, as falling costs like record-low solar power prices continue to reinforce those signals across sectors.

We will follow this approach in coming months, when energy savings will remain important, even as the EU electricity outlook anticipates sharply higher demand by 2050. Our latest relief measures will not distort price signals. To this end, the Bundestag approved gas and electricity price brakes in its final session in 2022. They are designed to function without any intervention in markets or prices. This system will pay out a fixed amount relative to previous years’ consumption and the current difference to a reference price — regardless of current consumption.

Energy price brakes are the main component of Germany’s “protective shield”, which makes up to €200bn available for measures in 2022 to 2024. Seen in relation to the German economy’s size, its past heavy reliance on Russian energy imports and the fact that the measures will expire in 2024, these are balanced and expedient mechanisms. In contrast to instruments used in other countries, our new arrangements will not affect the price formation process driven by supply and demand, or on incentives to save gas. Companies and households will continue to save the full market price when they reduce consumption by a unit of gas or electricity. In this way, the price brakes also avoid the creation of additional demand for gas at the expense of consumers in other European countries, even as Europe’s Big Oil turning electric signals broader structural shifts in energy markets. No one need fear that competition will be distorted or that gas will be bought up. Indeed, a recent IMF working paper on cushioning the impact of high energy prices on households explicitly praises the German energy price brakes.

Current developments confirm the effectiveness of a market-based approach — and show that we should also rely on price signals when it comes to reducing CO₂ emissions, as suggested by IEA CO2 trends in recent years. Last year, households and companies had only a few weeks to adapt, yet we have already seen a strong response. The effect of CO₂ prices can be even stronger, as adaptation is possible over a much longer time and they additionally affect expectations and long-term decisions. Regulatory interventions and subsidy schemes, even if well targeted, cannot compete with market co-ordination and incentives that support individual decision-making and promote innovation.

Europe and Germany can weather this crisis without a collapse in industrial production. We also have an opportunity to deal efficiently with the move to climate neutrality, aligned with Germany’s hydrogen strategy for imported low-carbon fuels. In both cases, we should have confidence in price signals as well as in the power of people and business to innovate and adapt.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK Clean Energy Supply Chain Delays are slowing decarbonization as transformer lead times, grid infrastructure bottlenecks, and battery storage contractors raise costs and risk 2030 targets despite manufacturing expansions by Siemens Energy and GE Vernova.

Key Points

Labor and equipment bottlenecks delay transformers and grid upgrades, risking the UK's 2030 clean power target.

✅ Transformer lead times doubled or tripled, raising project costs

✅ Grid infrastructure and battery storage contractors in short supply

✅ Firms expand capacity cautiously amid uncertain demand signals

The United Kingdom's ambitious plans to transition to clean energy are encountering significant obstacles due to prolonged delays in obtaining essential equipment such as transformers and other electrical components. These supply chain challenges are impeding the nation's progress toward decarbonizing its power sector by 2030, even as wind leads the power mix in key periods.

Supply Chain Challenges

The global surge in demand for renewable energy infrastructure, including large-scale storage solutions, has led to extended lead times for critical components. For example, Statera Energy's storage plant in Thurrock experienced a 16-month delay for transformers from Siemens Energy. Such delays threaten the UK's goal to decarbonize power supplies by 2030.

Economic Implications

These supply chain constraints have doubled or tripled lead times over the past decade, resulting in increased costs and straining the energy transition as wind became the main source of UK electricity in a recent milestone. Despite efforts to expand manufacturing capacity by companies like GE Vernova, Hitachi Energy, and Siemens Energy, the sector remains cautious about overinvesting without predictable demand, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have reinforced concerns about delivery risks.

Workforce and Manufacturing Capacity

Additionally, there is a limited number of companies capable of constructing and maintaining battery sites, adding to the challenges. These issues underscore the necessity for new factories and a trained workforce to support the electrification plans and meet the 2030 targets.

Government Initiatives

In response to these challenges, the UK government is exploring various strategies to bolster domestic manufacturing capabilities and streamline supply chains while supporting grid reform efforts underway to improve system resilience. Investments in infrastructure and workforce development are being considered to mitigate the impact of global supply chain disruptions and advance the UK's green industrial revolution for next-generation reactors.

The UK's energy transition is at a critical juncture, with supply chain delays posing substantial risks to achieving decarbonization goals, including the planned end of coal power after 142 years for the UK. Addressing these challenges will require coordinated efforts between the government, industry stakeholders, and international partners to ensure a sustainable and timely shift to clean energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hedonistic Sustainability turns Copenhagen's ARC waste-to-energy plant into a public playground, blending ski slope, climbing wall, and trails with carbon-neutral heating, renewables, circular economy design, and green growth for climate action and liveability.

Key Points

A design approach fusing public recreation with clean-energy infrastructure to drive carbon-neutral, livable urban growth.

✅ Waste-to-energy plant doubles as recreation hub

✅ Supports carbon-neutral heating and renewables

✅ Stakeholder-driven, scalable urban climate model

“We call it hedonistic sustainability,” says Jacob Simonsen of the decision to put an artificial ski slope on the roof of the £485m Amager Resource Centre (Arc), Copenhagen’s cutting-edge new waste-to-energy power plant that feeds the city’s district heating network as well. “It’s not just good for the environment, it’s good for life.”

Skiing is just one of the activities that Simonsen, Arc’s chief executive, and Bjarke Ingels, its lead architect, hope will enhance the latest jewel in Copenhagen’s sustainability crown. The incinerator building also incorporates hiking and running trails, a street fitness gym and the world’s highest outdoor climbing wall, an 85-metre “natural mountain” complete with overhangs that rises the full height of the main structure.

In Copenhagen, green transformation goes hand-in-hand with job creation, a growing economy and a better quality of life

Frank Jensen, lord mayor

It’s all part of Copenhagen’s plan to be net carbon-neutral by 2025. Even now, after a summer that saw wildfires ravagethe Arctic Circle and ice sheets in Greenland suffer near-record levels of melt, the goal seems ambitious. In 2009, when the project was formulated, it was positively revolutionary.

“A green, smart, carbon-neutral city,” declared the cover of the climate action plan, aligning with a broader electric planet vision, before detailing the scale of the challenge: 100 new wind turbines; a 20% reduction in both heat and commercial electricity consumption; 75% of all journeys to be by bike, on foot, or by public transport; the biogas-ification of all organic waste; 60,000 sq metres of new solar panels; and 100% of the city’s heating requirements to be met by renewables.

Radical and far-reaching, the scheme dared to rethink the very infrastructure underpinning the city. There’s still not a climate project anywhere else in the world that comes close, even as leaders elsewhere champion a fully renewable grid by 2030.

And, so far, it’s working. CO2 emissions have been reduced by 42% since 2005, and while challenges around mobility and energy consumption remain (new technologies such as better batteries and carbon capture are being implemented, and global calls for clean electricity investment grow), the city says it is on track to achieve its ultimate goal.

More significant still is that Copenhagen has achieved this while continuing to grow in traditional economic terms. Even as some commentators insist that nothing short of a total rethink of free-market economics and corporate structures is required to stave off global catastrophe, the Danish capital’s carbon transformation has happened alongside a 25% growth in its economy over two decades. Copenhagen’s experience will be a model for other world cities as the global energy transition unfolds.

The sentiment that lies behind Arc’s conception as a multi-use public good – “hedonistic sustainability” – is echoed by Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard, former mayor of Copenhagen for the environment and the man originally tasked, back in 2010, with making the plan a reality.

“We combined life quality with sustainability and called it ‘liveability’,” says Kjeldgaard, now CEO of his own climate adaptation company, Greenovation. “We succeeded in building a good narrative around this, one that everybody could believe in.”

The idea was first floated in the late 1990s, when the newly elected Kjeldgaard had a vision of Copenhagen as the environmental capital of Europe. His enthusiasm ran into political intransigence, however, and despite some success, a lack of budget meant most of his work became “just another branding exercise – it was greenwashing”.

We’re such a rich country – change should be easy for us

Claus Nielsen, furniture maker and designer

But after stints as mayor of family and the labour market, and children and young people, he ended up back at environment in 2010 with renewed determination and, crucially, a broader mandate from the city council. “I said: ‘This time, we have to do it right,’” he recalls, “so we made detailed, concrete plans for every area, set the carbon target, and demanded the money and the manpower to make it a reality.”

He brought on board more than 200 stakeholders, from businesses to academia to citizen representatives, and helped them develop 22 specific business plans and 65 separate projects. So far the plan appears on track: there has been a 15% reduction in heat consumption, 66% of all trips in the city are now by bike, on foot or public transport, and 51% of heat and power comes from renewable electricity sources.

The onus placed on ordinary Copenhageners to walk and cycle more, pay higher taxes (especially on cars) and put up with the inconvenience of infrastructure construction has generally been met with understanding and good grace. And while some people remain critical of the fact that Copenhagen airport is not factored into the CO2 calculations – it lies beyond the city’s boundaries – and grumble about precise definitions and formulae, dissent has been rare.

This relative lack of nimbyism and carping about change can, says Frank Jensen, the city’s lord mayor, be traced to longstanding political traditions.

“Caring for the environment and taking responsibility for society in general has been an integral part of the upbringing of many Danes,” he says. “Moreover, there is a general awareness that climate change now calls for immediate, ambitious and collective action.” A 2018 survey by Concito, a thinktank, found that such action was a top priority for voters.

Jensen is keen to stress the cooperative nature of the plan and says “our visions have to be grounded in the everyday lives of people to be politically feasible”. Indeed, involving so many stakeholders, and allowing them to actively help shape both the ends and the means, has been key to the plan’s success so far and the continued goodwill it enjoys. “It’s so important to note that we [the authorities] cannot do this alone,” says Jørgen Abildgaard, Copenhagen’s executive climate programme director.

Many businesses around the world have typically been reluctant to embrace sustainability when a dip in profits or inconvenience might be the result, but not in Copenhagen. Martin Manthorpe, director of strategy, business development and public affairs at NCC, one of Scandinavia’s largest construction and industrial groups, was brought in early on by Abildgaard to represent industry on the municipality’s climate panel, and to facilitate discussions with the wider business community. He thinks there are several reasons why.

“The Danes have a trading mindset, meaning ‘What will I have to sell tomorrow?’ is just as important as ‘What am I producing today?’” he says. “Also, many big Danish companies are still ultimately family-owned, so the culture leans more towards long-term thinking.”

It is, he says, natural for business to be concerned with issues around sustainability and be willing to endure short-term pain: “To do responsible, long-term business, you need to see yourself as part of the larger puzzle that is called ‘society’.”

Furthermore, in Denmark climate change denial is given extremely short shrift. “We believe in the science,” says Anders Haugaard, a local entrepreneur. “Why wouldn’t you? We’re told sustainability brings only benefits and we’ve got no reason to be suspicious.”

“No one would dare argue against the environment,” says his friend Claus Nielsen, a furniture maker and designer. “We’re such a rich country – change should be easy for us.” Nielsen talks about how enlightened his kids are – “my 11-year-old daughter is now a flexitarian ” – and says that nowadays he mainly buys organic; Haugaard doesn’t see a problem with getting rid of petrol cars (the whole country is aiming to be fossil fuel-free by 2050 as the EU electricity use by 2050 is expected to double).

Above all, there’s a belief that sustainability need not make the city poorer: that innovation and “green growth” can be lucrative in and of themselves. “In Copenhagen, green transformation goes hand-in-hand with job creation, a growing economy and a better quality of life,” says Jensen. “We have also shown that it’s possible to combine this transition with economic growth and market opportunities for businesses, and I think that other countries can learn from our example.”

Besides, as Jensen notes, there is little alternative, and even less time: “National states have failed to take enough responsibility, but cities have the power and will to create concrete solutions. We need to start accelerating their implementation – we need to act now.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News