International Power, GDF Suez talks stall

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SDG&E Mitsubishi Power Energy Storage adds a 10 MW/60 MWh BESS in Pala, boosting grid reliability, renewable integration, and flexibility with EMS and SCADA controls, LFP safety chemistry, NERC CIP compliance, UL 9540 standards.

Key Points

A 10 MW/60 MWh BESS for SDG&E in Pala that enhances grid reliability, renewables usage, and operational flexibility.

✅ Emerald EMS/SCADA meets NERC CIP, IEC/ISA 62443, NIST 800-53

✅ LFP chemistry with UL 9540 and UL 9540A safety compliance

✅ Adds capacity, energy, and ancillary services to CA grid

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), a regulated public utility that provides energy service to 3.7 million people, has awarded Mitsubishi Power an order for a 10 megawatt (MW) / 60 megawatt-hour (MWh) energy storage solution for its Pala-Gomez Creek Energy Storage Project in Pala, California. The battery energy storage system (BESS) will add capacity to help meet high energy demand, support grid reliability and operational flexibility, underscoring the broader benefits of energy storage now recognized by utilities, maximize use of renewable energy, and help prevent outages during peak demand.

The BESS project is Mitsubishi Power’s eighth in California, bringing total capacity to 280 MW / 1,140 MWh of storage to help meet California’s clean energy goals with reliable power to complement renewables, alongside emerging solutions like a California green hydrogen microgrid for added resilience.

Mitsubishi Power’s Emerald storage solution for SDG&E includes full turnkey design, engineering, procurement, and construction, as well as a 10-year long-term service agreement, aligning with CEC long-duration storage funding initiatives underway. It is scheduled to be online in early 2023.

The project will repower an existing energy storage site. It will employ Mitsubishi Power’s Emerald Integrated Plant Controller, which is an Energy Management System (EMS) and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system with real-time BESS operation and a monitoring/supervisory control platform. Mitsubishi Power leverages its decades of technology monitoring and diagnostics to turn data into actionable insights to maximize reliability, a priority as regions like Ontario increasingly rely on battery storage to meet rising demand. The Mitsubishi Power Emerald Integrated Plant Controller complies with North American Electric Reliability Corporation critical infrastructure protection (NERC CIP) standards and meets the highest security certification in the energy storage industry (IEC/ISA 62443, NIST 800-53) for maximum protection from cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities.

For added physical safety, Mitsubishi Power’s solution employs lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery chemistry, aligning with BESS adoption in New York where safety and performance are critical. Compared with other chemistries, LFP provides longer life and superior thermal stability and chemical stability, while meeting UL 9540 and UL 9540A safety standards.

Fernando Valero, Director, Advanced Clean Technology, SDG&E, said, “SDG&E is committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. We are increasing our portfolio of energy storage assets, including virtual power plant models, to reach this goal. These assets enhance grid reliability and operational flexibility while maximizing our use of abundant renewable energy sources in California.”

Tom Cornell, Senior Vice President, Energy Storage Solutions, Mitsubishi Power Americas, said, “As more and more renewables come online during the energy transition, BESS solutions are essential to support a reliable and stable grid. We look forward to providing SDG&E with our BESS solution to add capacity, energy, and ancillary services to California’s grid. Mitsubishi Power’s Emerald storage solutions are enabling a smarter and more resilient energy future for our customers in California and around the globe, with projects like an energy storage demonstration in India underscoring this momentum.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ukraine Winter Energy Strategy strengthens the power grid through infrastructure repairs, electricity imports, renewable integration, nuclear output, and conservation to ensure reliable heating, blackout mitigation, and grid resilience with international aid, generators, and transmission lines.

Key Points

A wartime plan to stabilize Ukraine's grid via repairs, imports, renewables, and nuclear to deliver reliable electricity.

✅ Repairs, imports, and demand management stabilize the grid.

✅ Renewables and nuclear reduce outage risks in winter.

✅ International aid supplies transformers, generators, expertise.

As Ukraine braces for the winter months, the question of how the country will keep the lights on has become a pressing concern, as the country fights to keep the lights on amid ongoing strikes. The ongoing war with Russia has severely disrupted Ukraine's energy infrastructure, leading to widespread damage to power plants, transmission lines, and other critical energy facilities. Despite these challenges, Ukraine has been working tirelessly to maintain its energy supply during the cold winter months, which are essential not only for heating but also for the functioning of homes, businesses, hospitals, and schools. Here's a closer look at the steps Ukraine is taking to keep the lights on this winter and ensure that its people have access to reliable electricity.

1. Repairing Damaged Infrastructure

One of the most immediate concerns for Ukraine's energy sector is the extensive damage inflicted on its power infrastructure by Russian missile and drone attacks. Since the war began in 2022, Ukraine has faced repeated attacks targeting power plants, substations, and power lines, including strikes on western regions that caused widespread outages across communities. These attacks have left parts of the country with intermittent or no electricity, and repairing the damage has been a monumental task.

However, Ukraine has made significant progress in restoring its energy infrastructure. Government agencies and energy companies have been working around the clock to repair power plants and transmission networks. Teams of technicians and engineers have been deployed to restore power to areas that have been hardest hit by Russian attacks, often under difficult and dangerous conditions. While some areas may continue to face outages, efforts to rebuild the energy grid are ongoing, with the government prioritizing critical infrastructure to ensure that hospitals, military facilities, and essential services have access to power.

2. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Measures

To cope with reduced energy availability and avoid overloading the grid, Ukrainian authorities have been encouraging energy efficiency and conservation measures. These efforts are particularly important during the winter when demand for electricity and heating is at its peak.

The government has implemented energy-saving programs, urging citizens and businesses to reduce their consumption and adopt new energy solutions that can be deployed quickly. Measures include limiting electricity use during peak hours, setting thermostats lower in homes and businesses, and encouraging the use of energy-efficient appliances. Ukrainian officials have also been promoting public awareness campaigns to educate people about the importance of energy conservation, which is crucial to avoid grid overload and ensure the distribution of power across the country.

3. Importing Energy from Abroad

To supplement domestic energy production, Ukraine has been working to secure electricity imports from neighboring countries. Ukraine has long been interconnected with energy grids in countries such as Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary, which allows it to import electricity during times of shortage. In recent months, Ukraine has ramped up efforts to strengthen these connections, ensuring that it can import electricity when domestic production is insufficient to meet demand, and in a notable instance, helped Spain during blackouts through coordinated cross-border support.

While electricity imports from neighboring countries provide a temporary solution, this is not without its challenges. The cost of importing electricity can be high, and the country’s ability to import large amounts of power depends on the availability of energy in neighboring nations; officials say there are electricity reserves and no scheduled outages if strikes do not resume. Ukraine has been actively seeking new energy partnerships and working with international organizations to secure access to electricity, including exploring the potential for importing energy from the European Union.

4. Harnessing Renewable Energy Sources

Another key part of Ukraine's strategy to keep the lights on this winter is tapping into renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar power. While Ukraine’s energy sector has historically been dependent on fossil fuels, the country has been making strides in integrating renewable energy into its grid. Solar and wind energy are particularly useful in supplementing the national grid, especially during the winter months when demand is high.

Renewable energy sources are less vulnerable to missile strikes compared to traditional power plants, making them an attractive option for Ukraine's energy strategy. Although renewable energy currently represents a smaller portion of Ukraine’s overall energy mix, its contribution is expected to increase as the country invests more in clean energy infrastructure. In addition to reducing dependence on fossil fuels, this shift is aligned with Ukraine’s broader environmental goals and will be important for the long-term sustainability of its energy sector.

5. International Aid and Support

International support has been crucial in helping Ukraine keep the lights on during the war. Western allies, including the European Union and the United States, have provided financial assistance, technical expertise, and equipment to help restore the energy infrastructure, though Washington recently ended some grid restoration support as priorities shifted. In addition to rebuilding power plants and transmission lines, Ukraine has received advanced energy technologies and materials to strengthen its energy security.

The U.S. has sent electrical transformers, backup generators, and other essential equipment to help Ukraine restore its energy grid. The European Union has also provided both financial and technical assistance, supporting Ukraine’s efforts to integrate more renewable energy into its grid and enhancing the country’s ability to import electricity from neighboring states.

6. The Role of Nuclear Energy

Ukraine’s nuclear energy plants play a critical role in the country’s electricity supply. Before the war, nuclear power accounted for around 50% of Ukraine’s total electricity generation, and for communities near the front line, electricity is civilization that depends on reliable baseload. Despite the ongoing conflict, Ukrainian nuclear plants have remained operational, though they face heightened security risks due to the proximity of active combat zones.

In the winter months, nuclear plants are expected to continue providing a significant portion of Ukraine's electricity, which is essential for meeting the country's heating and power needs. The government has made efforts to ensure the safety and security of these plants, which remain a vital part of the country's energy strategy.

Keeping the lights on in Ukraine during the winter of 2024 is no small feat, given the war-related damage to energy infrastructure, rising energy demands, and ongoing security risks. However, the Ukrainian government has taken proactive steps to address these challenges, including repairing critical infrastructure, importing energy from neighboring countries, promoting energy efficiency, and expanding renewable energy sources. International aid and the continued operation of nuclear plants also play a vital role in ensuring a reliable energy supply. While challenges remain, Ukraine’s resilience and determination to overcome its energy crisis are clear, and the country is doing everything it can to keep the lights on through this difficult winter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

NRC Advanced Reactor Licensing streamlines a risk-informed, performance-based, technology-inclusive pathway for advanced non-light water reactors, aligning with NEIMA to enable predictable regulatory reviews, inherent safety, clean energy deployment, and industrial heat, hydrogen, and desalination applications.

Key Points

A risk-informed, performance-based NRC pathway streamlining licensing for advanced non-light water reactors.

✅ Aligned with NEIMA: risk-informed, performance-based, tech-inclusive

✅ Predictable licensing for advanced non-light water reactor designs

✅ Enables clean heat, hydrogen, desalination beyond electricity

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted 4-0 to approve the implementation of a more streamlined and predictable licensing pathway for advanced non-light water reactors, aligning with nuclear innovation priorities identified by industry advocates, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) announced, and amid regional reliability measures such as New England emergency fuel stock plans that have drawn cost scrutiny.

This approach is consistent with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernisation Act (NEIMA), a nuclear innovation act passed in 2019 by the US Congress calling for the development of a risk-informed, performance-based and technology inclusive licensing process for advanced reactor developers.

NEI Chief Nuclear Officer Doug True said: “A modernised regulatory framework is a key enabler of next-generation nuclear technologies that, amid ACORE’s challenge to DOE subsidy proposals in energy market proceedings, can help us meet our energy needs while protecting the climate. The Commission’s unanimous approval of a risk-informed and performance-based licensing framework paves the way for regulatory reviews to be aligned with the inherent safety characteristics, smaller reactor cores and simplified designs of advanced reactors.”

Over the last several years the industry’s Licensing Modernisation Project, sponsored by US Department of Energy, led by Southern Nuclear, and supported by NEI’s Advanced Reactor Regulatory Task Force, and influenced by a presidential order to bolster uranium and nuclear energy, developed the guidance for this new framework. Amid shifts in the fuel supply chain, including the U.S. ban on Russian uranium, this approach will inform the development of a new rule for licensing advanced reactors, which NEIMA requires.

“A well-defined licensing path will benefit the next generation of nuclear plants, especially as regions consider New England market overhaul efforts, which could meet a wide range of applications beyond generating electricity such as producing heat for industry, desalinating water, and making hydrogen – all without carbon emissions,” True noted.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Saskatchewan Solar Net Metering Program lets rooftop solar users offset at retail rate while earning 7.5 cents/kWh credits for excess energy; rebates are removed, SaskPower balances grid costs with a 100 kW cap.

Key Points

An updated SaskPower plan crediting rooftop solar at 7.5 cents/kWh, offsetting usage at retail rate, without rebates.

✅ Excess energy credited at 7.5 cents/kWh

✅ Offsets on-site use at retail electricity rates

✅ Up to 100 kW generation; no program capacity cap

Saskatchewan has unveiled a new program that credits electricity customers for generating their own solar power, but it won’t pay as much as an older program did or reimburse them with rebates for their costs to buy and install equipment.

The new net metering program takes effect Nov. 1, and customers will be able to use solar to offset their own power use at the retail rate, similar to UK households' right to sell power in comparable schemes, though program details differ.

But they will only get 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour credit on their bills for excess energy they put back into the grid, as seen in Duke Energy payment changes in other jurisdictions, rather than the 14 cents in the previous program.

Dustin Duncan, the minister responsible for Crown-owned SaskPower, says the utility had to consider the interests of people wanting to use rooftop solar and everyone else who doesn’t have or can’t afford the panels, who he says would have to make up for the lost revenue.

Duncan says the idea is to create a green energy option, with wind power gains highlighting broader competitiveness, while also avoiding passing on more of the cost of the system to people who just cannot afford solar panels of their own.

Customers with solar panels will be allowed to generate up to 100 kilowatts of power against their bills.

“It’s certainly my hope that this is going to provide sustainability for the industry, as illustrated by Alberta's renewable surge creating jobs, that they have a program that they can take forward to their potential customers, while at the same time ensuring that we’re not passing onto customers that don’t have solar panels more cost to upkeep the grid,” Duncan said Tuesday.

Saskatchewan NDP leader Ryan Meili said he believes eliminating the rebate and cutting the excess power credit will kill the province’s solar energy, a concern consistent with lagging solar demand in Canada in recent national reports, he said.

“(Duncan) essentially made it so that any homeowner who wants to put up panels would take up to twice as long to pay it back, which effectively prices everybody in the small part of the solar production industry — the homeowners, the farms, the small businesses, the small towns — out of the market,” Meili said.

The province’s old net metering program hit its 16 megawatt capacity ahead of schedule, forcing the program to shut down, while disputes like the Manitoba Hydro solar lawsuit have raised questions about program management elsewhere. It also had a rebate of 20 per cent of the cost of the system, but that rebate has been discontinued.

The new net metering program won’t have any limit on program capacity, or an end date.

According to Duncan, the old program would have had a net negative impact to SaskPower of about $54 million by 2025, but this program will be much less — between $4 million and $5 million.

Duncan said other provinces either have already or are in the process of moving away from rebates for solar equipment, including Nova Scotia's proposed solar charge and similar reforms, and away from the one-to-one credits for power generation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target highlights how rising greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation and natural gas power plants threaten Ontario’s climate goals, environmental sustainability, and clean energy transition efforts amid growing economic and policy challenges.

Why is Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target?

Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target examines the province’s setback in meeting climate goals due to higher power-sector emissions and shifting energy policies.

✅ Rising greenhouse gas emissions from gas-fired electricity generation

✅ Climate policy uncertainty and missed environmental targets

✅ Balancing clean energy transition with economic pressures

Ontario’s path toward meeting its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target has taken a sharp turn for the worse, according to internal government documents obtained by Global News. The province, once on track to surpass its reduction goals, is now projected to miss them—largely due to rising emissions from electricity generation, even as the IEA net-zero electricity report highlights rising demand nationwide.

In October 2024, the Ford government’s internal analysis indicated that Ontario was on track to reduce emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, effectively exceeding its target. But a subsequent update in January 2025 revealed a grim reversal. The new forecast showed an increase of about eight megatonnes (Mt) of emissions compared to the previous model, with most of the rise attributed to the province’s energy policies.

“This forecast is about 8 Mt higher than the October 2024 forecast, mainly due to higher electricity sector emissions that reflect the latest ENERGY/IESO energy planning and assumptions,” the internal document stated.

While the analysis did not specify which policy shifts triggered the change, experts point to Ontario’s growing reliance on natural gas. The use of gas-fired power plants has surged to fill temporary gaps created by nuclear refurbishment projects and other grid constraints, even as renewable energy’s role grows. In fact, natural gas generation in early 2025 reached its highest level since 2012.

The internal report cited “changing electricity generation,” nuclear power refurbishment, and “policy uncertainty” as major risks to achieving the province’s climate goals. But the situation may be even worse than the government’s updated forecast suggests.

On Wednesday, Ontario’s auditor general warned that the January projections were overly optimistic. The watchdog’s new report concluded the province could fall even further behind its 2030 emissions target, noting that reductions had likely been overestimated in several sectors, including transportation—such as electric vehicle sales—and waste management. “An even wider margin” of missed goals was now expected, the auditor said.

Environment Minister Todd McCarthy defended the government’s position, arguing that climate goals must be balanced against economic realities. “We cannot put families’ financial, household budgets at risk by going off in a direction that’s not achievable,” McCarthy said.

The minister declined to commit to new emissions targets beyond 2030—or even to confirm that the existing goals would be met—but insisted efforts were ongoing. “We are continuing to meet our commitment to at least try to meet our commitment for the 2030 target,” he told reporters. “But targets are not outcomes. We believe in achievable outcomes, not unrealistic objectives.”

Environmental advocates warn that Ontario’s reliance on fossil-fuel generation could lock the province into higher emissions for years, undermining national efforts to decarbonize Canada’s electricity grid. With cleaning up Canada’s electricity expected to play a central role in both industrial growth and climate action, the province’s backslide represents a significant setback for Canada’s overall emissions strategy.

Other provinces face similar challenges; for example, B.C. is projected to miss its 2050 targets by a wide margin.

As Ontario weighs its next steps, the tension between energy security, affordability, and environmental responsibility continues to define the province’s path toward a lower-carbon future and Canada’s 2050 net-zero target over the long term.

Related Articles

• Canada Electricity News