EPRI, Entergy validate voltage stability monitoring

Power plant staff sequestration isolates essential operators on-site at plants and control centers, safeguarding critical infrastructure and grid reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic under DHS CISA guidance, with social distancing, offset shifts, and stockpiled supplies.

Key Points

A protocol isolating essential grid workers on-site to maintain operations at plants and control centers.

✅ Ensures grid reliability and continuity of critical infrastructure

✅ Implements social distancing, offset shifts, and isolation protocols

✅ Stockpiles food, beds, PPE, and sanitation for essential crews

The U.S. electric industry may ask essential staff to live on site at power plants and control centers to keep operations running if the coronavirus outbreak worsens, after a U.S. grid warning from the overseer, and has been stockpiling beds, blankets, and food for them, according to industry trade groups and electric cooperatives.

The contingency plans, if enacted, would mark an unprecedented step by power providers to keep their highly-skilled workers healthy as both private industry and governments scramble to minimize the impact of the global pandemic that has infected more than 227,000 people worldwide, with some utilities such as BC Hydro at Site C reporting COVID-19 updates as the situation evolves.

“The focus needs to be on things that keep the lights on and the gas flowing,” said Scott Aaronson, vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the nation’s biggest power industry association. He said that some “companies are already either sequestering a healthy group of their essential employees or are considering doing that and are identifying appropriate protocols to do that.”

Maria Korsnick, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said that some of the nation’s nearly 60 nuclear power plants are also “considering measures to isolate a core group to run the plant, stockpiling ready-to-eat meals and disposable tableware, laundry supplies and personal care items.”

Neither group identified specific companies, though nuclear worker concerns have been raised in some cases.

Electric power plants, oil and gas infrastructure and nuclear reactors are considered “critical infrastructure” by the federal government, and utilities continue to emphasize safety near downed lines even during emergencies. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is charged with coordinating plans to keep them operational during an emergency.

A DHS spokesperson said that its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had issued guidance to local governments and businesses on Thursday asking them to implement policies to protect their critical staff from the virus, even as an EPA telework policy emerged during the pandemic.

“When continuous remote work is not possible, businesses should enlist strategies to reduce the likelihood of spreading the disease,” the guidance stated. “This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, separating staff by off-setting shift hours or days and/or social distancing.”

Public health officials have urged the public to practice social distancing as a preventative measure to slow the spread of the virus, and as more people work from home, rising residential electricity use is being observed alongside daily routines. If workers who are deemed essential still leave, go to work and return to their homes, it puts the people they live with at risk of exposure. 

California has imposed a statewide shutdown, asking all citizens who do not work in those critical infrastructure industries not to leave their homes, a shift that may raise household electricity bills for consumers. Similar actions have been put in place in cities across America.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Alberta Hydropower Potential highlights renewable energy, dams, reservoirs, grid flexibility, contrasting wind and solar growth with limited investment, regulatory hurdles, river basin resources, and decarbonization pathways across Athabasca, Peace, and Slave River systems.

Key Points

It is the technical capacity for new hydro in Alberta's river basins to support a more reliable, lower carbon grid.

✅ 42,000 GWh per year developable hydro identified in studies.

✅ Major potential in Athabasca, Peace, and Slave River basins.

✅ Barriers include high capital costs, market design, water rights.

When you think about renewable energy sources on the Prairies, your mind may go to the wind farms in southern Alberta, or even the Travers Solar Project, southeast of Calgary.

Most of the conversation around renewable energy in the province is dominated by advancements in solar and wind power, amid Alberta's renewable energy surge that continues to attract attention. 

But what about Canada's main source of electricity — hydro power?

More than half of Canada's electricity is generated from hydro sources, with 632.2 terawatt-hours produced as of 2019. That makes it the fourth largest installed capacity of hydropower in the world. 

But in Alberta, it's a different story. 

Currently, hydro power contributes between three and five per cent of Alberta's energy mix, while fossil fuels make up about 89 per cent.

According to Canada's Energy Future report from the Canada Energy Regulator, by 2050 it will make up two per cent of the province's electricity generation shares.

So why is it that a province so rich in mountains and rivers has so little hydro power?

Hydro's history in Alberta
Hydro power didn't always make up such a small sliver of Alberta's electricity generation. Hydro installations began in the early 20th century as the province's population exploded. 

Grant Berg looks after engineering for hydro for TransAlta, Alberta's largest producer of hydro power with 17 facilities across the province.

"Our first plant was Horseshoe, which started in 1911 that we formed as Calgary Power," he said. 

"It was really in response to the City of Calgary growing and having some power needs."

Berg said in 1913, TransAlta's second installation, the Kananaskis Plant, started as Calgary continued to grow.

A historical photo of a hydro-electric dam in Kananaskis Alta. taken in 1914.
Hydro power plant in Kananaskis as seen in 1914. (Glenbow Archives)
Some bigger installations were built in the 1920s, including Ghost reservoir, but by mid-century population growth increased.

"Quite a large build out really, I think in response to the growth in Alberta following the war. So through the 1950s really quite a large build out of hydro from there."

By the 1950s, around half of the province's installed capacity was hydro power.

"Definitely Calgary power was all hydro until the 1950s," said Berg. 

Hydro potential in the province 
Despite the current low numbers in hydroelectricity, Alberta does have potential. 

According to a 2010 study, there is approximately 42,000 gigawatt-hours per year of remaining developable hydroelectric energy potential at identified sites. 

An average home in Alberta uses around 7,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, meaning that the hydro potential could power 5.8 million homes each year. 

"This volume of energy could be sufficient to serve a significant amount of Alberta's load and therefore play a meaningful role in the decarbonization of the province's electric system," the Alberta Electric System Operator said in its 2022 Pathways to Net-Zero Emissions report.

Much of that potential lies in northern Alberta, in the Athabasca, Peace and Slave River basins.

The AESO report says that despite the large resource potential, Alberta's energy-only market framework has attracted limited investment in hydroelectric generation. 

Hydro power was once a big deal in Alberta, but investment in the industry has been in decline since the 1950s. Climate change reporter Christy Climenhaga explains why.
So why does Alberta leave out such a large resource potential on the path to net zero?

The government of Alberta responded to that question in a statement. 

"Hydro facilities, particularly large scale ones involving dams, are associated with high costs and logistical demands," said the Ministry of Affordability and Utilities. 

"Downstream water rights for other uses, such as irrigation, further complicate the development of hydro projects."

The ministry went on to say that wind and solar projects have increased far more rapidly because they can be developed at relatively lower cost and shorter timelines, and with fewer logistical demands.

"Sources from wind power and solar are increasingly more competitive," said Jean-Denis Charlebois, chief economist with the Canadian Energy Regulator. 

Hydro on the path to net zero
Hydro power is incredibly important to Canada's grid, and will remain so, despite growth in wind and solar power across the province.

Charlebois said that across Canada, the energy make-up will depend on the province. 

"Canadian provinces will generate electricity in very different ways from coast to coast. The major drivers are essentially geography," he said. 

Charlebois says that in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, hydropower generation will continue to make up the majority of the grid.

"In Alberta and Saskatchewan, we see a fair bit of potential for wind and solar expansion in the region, which is not necessarily the case on Canada's coastlines," he said.

And although hydro is renewable, it does bring its adverse effects to the environment — land use changes, changes in flow patterns, fish populations and ecosystems, which will have to be continually monitored. 

"You want to be able to manage downstream effects; make sure that you're doing all the proper things for the environment," said Ryan Braden, director of mining and hydro at TransAlta.

Braden said hydro power still has a part to play in Alberta, even with its smaller contributions to the future grid. 

"It's one of those things that, you know, the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, this is here. The way we manage it, we can really support that supply and demand," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK EV Per-Mile Taxes are reshaping road pricing and vehicle taxation for electric cars, raising fairness concerns, climate policy questions, and funding needs for infrastructure and charging networks across the country.

Key Points

They are per-mile road charges on EVs to fund infrastructure, raising fairness, emissions, and vehicle taxation concerns.

✅ Propose tax relief or credits for EV owners

✅ Consider emission-based road user charging

✅ Invest in charging networks and road infrastructure

As the UK continues its push towards a greener future with increased adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and surging EV interest during supply disruptions, a growing number of electric car drivers are voicing their frustration over the current tax system. The debate centers around the per-mile vehicle taxes that are being proposed and implemented, which many argue are unfairly burdensome on EV owners. This issue has sparked a broader campaign advocating for a more equitable approach to vehicle taxation, one that reflects the evolving landscape of transportation and environmental policy.

Rising Costs for Electric Car Owners

Electric vehicles have been hailed as a crucial component in the UK’s strategy to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. Government incentives, such as grants for EV purchases and tax breaks, have been instrumental in encouraging the shift from petrol and diesel cars to cleaner alternatives, even as affordability concerns persist among many UK consumers. However, as the number of electric vehicles on the road grows, the financial dynamics of vehicle taxation are coming under scrutiny.

One of the key issues is the introduction and increase of per-mile vehicle taxes. While these taxes are designed to account for road usage and infrastructure costs, they have been met with resistance from EV drivers who argue that they are being disproportionately affected. Unlike traditional combustion engine vehicles, electric cars typically have lower running costs compared to petrol or diesel models and, in many cases, benefit from lower or zero emissions. Yet, the current tax system does not always reflect these advantages.

The Taxation Debate

The crux of the debate lies in how vehicle taxes are structured and implemented. Per-mile taxes are intended to ensure that all road users contribute fairly to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. However, the implementation of such taxes has raised concerns about fairness and affordability, particularly for those who have invested heavily in electric vehicles.

Critics argue that per-mile taxes do not adequately take into account the environmental benefits of driving an electric car, noting that the net impact depends on the electricity generation mix in each market. While EV owners are contributing to a cleaner environment by reducing emissions, they are also facing higher taxes that could undermine the financial benefits of their greener choice. This has led to calls for a reassessment of the tax system to ensure that it aligns with the UK’s climate goals and provides a fair deal for electric vehicle drivers.

Campaigns for Fairer Taxation

In response to these concerns, several advocacy groups and individual EV owners have launched campaigns calling for a more balanced approach to vehicle taxation. These campaigns emphasize the need for a system that supports the transition to electric vehicles and recognizes their role in reducing environmental impact, drawing on ambitious EV targets abroad as useful benchmarks.

Key proposals from these campaigns include:

1. Tax Relief for EV Owners: Advocates suggest providing targeted tax relief for electric vehicle owners to offset the costs of per-mile taxes. This could include subsidies or tax credits that acknowledge the environmental benefits of EVs and help to make up for higher road usage fees.

2. Emission-Based Taxation: An alternative approach is to design vehicle taxes based on emissions rather than mileage. This system would ensure that those driving high-emission vehicles contribute more to road maintenance, while EV owners, who are already reducing emissions, are not penalized.

3. Infrastructure Investments: Campaigners also call for increased investments in infrastructure that supports electric vehicles, such as charging networks and proper grid management practices that balance load. This would help to address concerns about the adequacy of current road maintenance and support the growing number of EVs on the road.

Government Response and Future Directions

The UK government faces the challenge of balancing revenue needs with environmental goals. While there is recognition of the need to update the tax system in light of increasing EV adoption, there is also a focus on ensuring that any changes are equitable and do not disincentivize the shift towards cleaner vehicles, while considering whether the UK grid can handle additional EV demand reliably.

Discussions are ongoing about how to best implement changes that address the concerns of electric vehicle owners while ensuring that the transportation infrastructure remains adequately funded. The outcome of these discussions will be critical in shaping the future of vehicle taxation in the UK and supporting the country’s broader environmental objectives.

Conclusion

As electric vehicle adoption continues to rise in the UK, the debate over vehicle taxation becomes increasingly important. The campaign for fairer per-mile taxes highlights the need for a tax system that supports the transition to cleaner transportation while also being fair to those who have made environmentally conscious choices. Balancing these factors will be key to achieving the UK’s climate goals and ensuring that all road users contribute equitably to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. The ongoing dialogue and policy adjustments will play a crucial role in shaping a sustainable and just future for transportation in the UK.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

2040 Energy Outlook projects a shifting energy mix as renewables scale, EV adoption accelerates, and IEA forecasts plateauing oil demand alongside rising natural gas, highlighting policy, efficiency, and decarbonization trends that shape global consumption.

Key Points

A data-driven view of future energy mix, covering renewables, fossil fuels, EVs, oil demand, and policy impacts.

✅ Renewables reach 16-30% by 2040, higher with strong policy support.

✅ Fossil fuels remain dominant, with oil flat and natural gas rising.

✅ EV share surges, cutting oil use; efficiency curbs demand growth.

Which is more plausible: flying taxis, wind turbine arrays stretching miles into the ocean, and a solar roof on every house--or a scorched-earth, flooded post-Apocalyptic world? 

We have no way of peeking into the future, but we can certainly imagine it. There is plenty of information about where the world is headed and regardless of how reliable this information is—or isn’t—we never stop wondering. Will the energy world of 20 years from now be better or worse than the world we live in now? 

The answer may very well lie in the observable trends.

A Growing Population

The global population is growing, and it will continue to grow in the next two decades. This will drive a steady growth in energy demand, at about 1 percent per year, according to the International Energy Agency.

This modest rate of growth is good news for all who are concerned about the future of the planet. Parts of the world are trying to reduce their energy consumption, and this should have a positive effect on the carbon footprint of humanity. The energy thirst of most parts of the world will continue growing, however, hence the overall growth.

The world’s population is currently growing at a rate of a little over 1 percent annually. This rate of growth has been slowing since its peak in the 1960s and forecasts suggest that it will continue to slow. Growth in energy demand, on the other hand, may at some point stop moving in tune with population growth trends as affluence in some parts of the world grows. The richer people get, the more energy they need. So, to the big question: where will this energy come from?

The Rise of Renewables

For all the headline space they have been claiming, it may come as a disappointing surprise to many that renewable energy, excluding hydropower, to date accounts for just 14 percent of the global primary energy mix. 

Certainly, adoption of solar and wind energy has been growing in leaps and bounds, with their global share doubling in five years in many markets, but unless governments around the world commit a lot more money and effort to renewable energy, by 2040, solar and wind’s share in the energy mix will still only rise to about 16 to 17 percent. That’s according to the only comprehensive report on the future of energy that collates data from all the leading energy authorities in the world, by non-profit Resources for the Future.

The growth in renewables adoption, however, would be a lot more impressive if governments do make serious commitments. Under that scenario, the share of renewables will double to over 30 percent by 2040, echoing milestones like over 30% of global electricity reached recently: that’s the median rate of all authoritative forecasts. Amongst them, the adoption rates of renewables vary between 15 percent and 61 percent by 2040.

Even the most bullish of the forecasts on renewables is still far below the 100-percent renewable future many would like to fantasize about, although BNEF’s 50% by 2050 outlook points to what could be possible in the power sector. 

But in 2040, most of the world’s energy will still come from fossil fuels.

EV Energy

Here, forecasters are more optimistic. Again, there is a wide variation between forecasts, but in each and every one of them the share of electric vehicles on the world’s roads in 2040 is a lot higher than the meagre 1 percent of the global car fleet EVs constitute today.
Related: Gas Prices Languish As Storage Falls To Near-Record Lows

Government policy will be the key, as U.S. progress toward 30% wind and solar shows how policy steers the power mix that EVs ultimately depend on. Bans of internal combustion engines will go a long way toward boosting EV adoption, which is why some forecasters expect electric cars to come to account for more than 50 percent of cars on the road in 2040. Others, however, are more guarded in their forecasts, seeing their share of the global fleet at between 16 percent and a little over 40 percent.

Many pin their hopes for a less emission-intensive future on electric cars. Indeed, as the number of EVs rises, they displace ICE vehicles and, respectively, the emission-causing oil that fuels for ICE cars are made from.  It should be a no brainer that the more EVs we drive, the less emissions we produce. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case: China is the world’s biggest EV market, and its solar PV expansion has been rapid, it has the most EVs—including passenger cars and buses—but it is also one of the biggest emitters.

Still, by 2040, if the more optimistic forecasts come true, the world will be consuming less oil than it is consuming now: anywhere from 1.2 million bpd to 20 million bpd less, the latter case envisaging an all-electric global fleet in 2040. 

This Ain’t Your Daddy’s Oil

No, it ain’t. It’s your grandchildren’s oil, for good or for bad. The vision of an oil-free world where renewable power is both abundant and cheap enough to replace all the ways in which crude oil and natural gas are used will in 2040 still be just that--a vision, with practical U.S. grid constraints underscoring the challenges. Even the most optimistic energy scenarios for two decades from now see them as the dominant source of energy, with forecasts ranging between 60 percent and 79 percent. While these extremes are both below the over-80 percent share fossil fuels have in the world’s energy mix, they are well above 50 percent, and in the U.S. renewables are projected to reach about one-fourth of electricity soon, even as fossil fuels remain foundational.

Still, there is good news. Fuel efficiency alone will reduce oil demand significantly by 2040. In fact, according to the IEA, demand will plateau at a little over 100 million bpd by the mid-2030s. Combined with the influx of EVs many expect, the world of 20 years from now may indeed be consuming a lot less oil than the world of today. It will, however, likely consume a lot more natural gas. There is simply no way around fossil fuels, not yet. Unless a miracle of politics happens (complete with a ripple effect that will cost millions of people their jobs) in 2040 we will be as dependent on oil and gas as we are but we will hopefully breathe cleaner air.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Shift from Fossil Fuels to Renewables signals an energy transition and decarbonization, as investors favor wind and solar over coal, oil, and gas due to falling ROI, policy shifts, and accelerating clean-tech innovation.

Key Points

An economic and policy-driven move redirecting capital from coal, oil, and gas to scalable wind and solar power.

✅ Driven by ROI, risk, and protests curbing fossil fuel projects

✅ Coal declines as wind and solar capacity surges globally

✅ Policy, technology, and markets speed the energy transition

This article is an excerpt from "Changing Tides: An Ecologist's Journey to Make Peace with the Anthropocene" by Alejandro Frid. Reproduced with permission from New Society Publishers. The book releases Oct. 15.

The climate and biodiversity crises reflect the stories that we have allowed to infiltrate the collective psyche of industrial civilization. It is high time to let go of these stories. Unclutter ourselves. Regain clarity. Make room for other stories that can help us reshape our ways of being in the world.

For starters, I’d love to let go of what has been our most venerated and ingrained story since the mid-1700s: that burning more fossil fuels is synonymous with prosperity. Letting go of that story shouldn’t be too hard these days. Financial investment over the past decade has been shifting very quickly away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, as Europe's oil majors increasingly pivot to electrification. Even Bob Dudley, group chief executive of BP — one of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — acknowledged the trend, writing in the "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017": "The relentless drive to improve energy efficiency is causing global energy consumption overall to decelerate. And, of course, the energy mix is shifting towards cleaner, lower carbon fuels, driven by environmental needs and technological advances." Dudley went on:

Coal consumption fell sharply for the second consecutive year, with its share within primary energy falling to its lowest level since 2004. Indeed, coal production and consumption in the U.K. completed an entire cycle, falling back to levels last seen almost 200 years ago around the time of the Industrial Revolution, with the U.K. power sector recording its first-ever coal-free day in April of this year. In contrast, renewable energy globally led by wind and solar power grew strongly, helped by continuing technological advances.

According to Dudley’s team, global production of oil and natural gas also slowed down in 2016. Meanwhile, that same year, the combined power provided by wind and solar energy increased by 14.6 percent: the biggest jump on record. All in all, since 2005, the installed capacity for renewable energy has grown exponentially, doubling every 5.5 years, as investment incentives expand to accelerate clean power.

The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money, and Trump-era oil policies even reshaped Wall Street’s energy strategies.

It is important to celebrate that King Coal — that grand initiator of the Industrial Revolution and nastiest of fossil fuels — has just begun to lose its power over people and the atmosphere. But it is even more important to understand the underlying causes for these changes. The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because the bulk of investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money.

The easy fossil fuels — the kind you used to be able to extract with a large profit margin and relatively low risk of disaster — are essentially gone. Almost all that is left are the dregs: unconventional fossil fuels such as bitumen, or untapped offshore oil reserves in very deep water or otherwise challenging environments, like the Arctic. Sure, the dregs are massive enough to keep tempting investors. There is so much unconventional oil and shale gas left underground that, if we burned it, we would warm the world by 6 degrees or more. But unconventional fossil fuels are very expensive and energy-intensive to extract, refine and market. Additionally, new fossil fuel projects, at least in my part of the world, have become hair triggers for social unrest. For instance, Burnaby Mountain, near my home in British Columbia, where renewable electricity in B.C. is expanding, is the site of a proposed bitumen pipeline expansion where hundreds of people have been arrested since 2015 during multiple acts of civil disobedience against new fossil fuel infrastructure. By triggering legal action and delaying the project, these protests have dented corporate profits. So return on investment for fossil fuels has been dropping.

It is no coincidence that in 2017, Petronas, a huge transnational energy corporation, withdrew their massive proposal to build liquefied natural gas infrastructure on the north coast of British Columbia, as Canada's race to net-zero gathers pace across industry. Petronas backed out not because of climate change or to protect essential rearing habitat for salmon, but to backpedal from a deal that would fail to make them richer.

Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, even as fossil-fuel workers signal readiness to support the transition, does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity.

Neoliberal shifts to favor renewable energies can be completely devoid of concern for climate change. While in office, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioned climate science and cheered for the oil industry, yet that did not stop him from directing his state towards an expansion of wind and solar energy, even as President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible and anchored in long-term economics. Perry saw money to be made by batting for both teams, and merely did what most neoliberal entrepreneurs would have done.

The right change for the wrong reasons brings no guarantees. Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity. Once again, let’s look at Perry. As U.S. secretary of energy under Trump’s presidency, in 2017 he called the global shift from fossil fuels "immoral" and said the United States was "blessed" to provide fossil fuels for the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News