GE unit invests in wind farm

US Summer Energy Bills Crisis is driven by record heatwaves, soaring electricity prices, AC cooling demand, energy poverty risks, and LIHEAP relief, straining low-income households, vulnerable seniors, and budgets amid volatile utilities and peak demand.

Key Points

Rising household energy costs from extreme heat, higher electricity prices, and AC demand, straining vulnerable families.

✅ Record heatwaves drive peak electricity and cooling loads

✅ Tiered rates and volatile markets inflate utility bills

✅ LIHEAP aid and cooling centers offer short-term relief

As the sweltering heat of summer continues to grip much of the United States, American households are grappling with a staggering rise in energy bills. The combination of record-breaking temperatures and rising electricity prices is placing an unprecedented financial strain on families, raising concerns about the long-term impact on household budgets and overall well-being.

Record Heat and Energy Consumption

This summer has witnessed some of the hottest temperatures on record across the country. With many regions experiencing prolonged heatwaves, the demand for air conditioning and cooling systems has surged amid unprecedented electricity demand across parts of the U.S. The increased use of these energy-intensive appliances has led to a sharp rise in electricity consumption, which, combined with elevated energy prices, has pushed household energy bills to new heights.

The situation is particularly dire for households that are already struggling financially. Many families are facing energy bills that are not only higher than usual but are reaching levels that are unsustainable, underscoring electricity struggles for thousands of families across the country. This has prompted concerns about the potential for energy poverty, where individuals are forced to make difficult choices between paying for essential services and covering other necessary expenses.

Impact on Low-Income and Vulnerable Households

Low-income households and vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected by these soaring energy costs. For many, the financial burden of high energy bills is compounded by energy insecurity during the pandemic and other economic pressures, such as rising food prices and stagnant wages. The strain of paying for electricity during extreme heat can lead to tough decisions, including cutting back on other essential needs like healthcare or education.

Moreover, the heat itself poses a serious health risk, particularly for the elderly, children, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. High temperatures can exacerbate conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, making the need for reliable cooling even more critical. For those struggling to afford adequate cooling, the risk of heat-related illnesses and fatalities increases significantly.

Utilities and Energy Pricing

The sharp rise in energy bills can be attributed to several factors, including higher costs of electricity production and distribution. The ongoing transition to cleaner energy sources, while necessary for long-term environmental sustainability, has introduced short-term volatility in energy markets. Additionally, power-company supply chain crises and increased demand during peak summer months have contributed to higher prices.

Utilities are often criticized for their pricing structures, which can be complex and opaque. Some regions, including areas where California electricity bills soar under scrutiny, use tiered pricing models that charge higher rates as energy consumption increases. This can disproportionately impact households that need to use more energy during extreme heat, further exacerbating financial strain.

Government and Community Response

In response to the crisis, various government and community initiatives are being rolled out to provide relief. Federal and state programs aimed at assisting low-income households with energy costs are being expanded. These programs, such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), offer financial assistance to help with utility bills, but demand often outstrips available resources.

Local community organizations are also stepping in to offer support. Initiatives include distributing fans and portable air conditioners, providing temporary cooling centers, and offering financial assistance to help cover energy costs. These efforts are crucial in helping to mitigate the immediate impact of high energy bills on vulnerable households.

Long-Term Solutions and Sustainability

The current crisis highlights the need for long-term solutions to address both the causes and consequences of high energy costs. Investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can help reduce the overall demand for electricity and lower long-term costs. Improvements in building insulation, the adoption of energy-efficient appliances, and advancements in smart grid technologies to prevent summer power outages are all essential components of a sustainable energy future.

Furthermore, addressing income inequality and supporting economic stability are critical to ensuring that all households can manage their energy needs without facing financial hardship. Policymakers will need to consider a range of strategies, including financial support programs, regulatory reforms, and infrastructure investments, to create a more equitable and resilient energy system.

Conclusion

As American households endure the double burden of extreme summer heat and skyrocketing energy bills, the need for immediate relief and long-term solutions has never been clearer. The current crisis serves as a reminder of the broader challenges facing the nation’s energy system and the importance of addressing both short-term needs and long-term sustainability. By investing in efficient technologies, supporting vulnerable populations, and developing resilient infrastructure, the U.S. can work towards a future where energy costs are manageable, and everyone has access to the resources they need to stay safe and comfortable.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Transmission Rule accelerates grid modernization and interregional high-voltage lines, enabling renewable energy integration, load balancing, and reliability to advance net-zero goals while strengthening resilience, capacity expansion, and decarbonization across U.S. regional transmission organizations.

Key Points

A federal policy mandating interregional grid planning and cost sharing to expand high-voltage lines for renewables.

✅ Expands interregional high-voltage transmission capacity

✅ Improves reliability, resilience, and load balancing

✅ Aligns cost allocation and long-term planning for renewables

On May 13th, 2024, the US took a monumental step towards its clean energy goals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a long-awaited rule designed to significantly expand the transmission of renewable energy across the nation's power grid, a US grid overhaul that many advocates say was overdue. This decision aligns with President Biden's ambitious plan to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with renewable energy playing a central role.

The new rule tackles a critical bottleneck hindering the widespread adoption of renewables – transmission infrastructure. Unlike traditional power plants like coal or natural gas that run constantly, solar and wind power generation fluctuates with weather conditions. This variability poses a challenge for the existing grid, which is not designed to efficiently handle large-scale integration of these intermittent sources, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today.

The FERC rule aims to address this by promoting the construction of new, high-voltage transmission lines, particularly those connecting different regions, where grid limitations in the Pacific Northwest have highlighted the need for better interregional transfers. This improved connectivity would allow for a more strategic distribution of renewable energy. Imagine solar energy harnessed in the sun-drenched Southwest being transmitted eastward to meet peak demand during hot summer days on the Atlantic Coast.

The benefits of this expanded transmission network are multifaceted. First, it unlocks the full potential of renewable resources by allowing for their efficient utilization across the country, a trend consistent with wind and solar surpassing coal in U.S. generation. Abundant wind power in the Midwest could be utilized on the West Coast, while surplus solar energy from the South could supplement demand in the Northeast.

Second, a more robust grid with a higher capacity for renewables reduces reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants and complements other ways to meet decarbonization goals across sectors. This translates to cleaner air and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to the fight against climate change.

Third, a modernized grid with improved long-distance transmission bolsters the nation's energy security. Extreme weather events, a growing concern due to climate change, can disrupt energy production in specific regions. This interconnected grid would provide a buffer, ensuring a more reliable and resilient power supply and helping put regions on the road to 100% renewables even during adverse weather conditions.

The FERC's decision is a win for environmental groups and the renewable energy industry. They see it as a critical step towards a cleaner energy future and a significant driver of job creation in the construction and maintenance of new transmission lines. However, concerns have been raised by some stakeholders, particularly investor-owned utilities. They worry about the potential cost burden associated with building these expansive new lines, and recent reports of stalled grid spending underscore those concerns and the need for efficient cost allocation mechanisms. Striking a balance between efficiency, affordability, and environmental responsibility will be crucial for the successful implementation of this policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

2019 Global CO2 Emissions stayed flat, IEA reports, as renewable energy growth, wind and solar deployment, nuclear output, and coal-to-gas switching in advanced economies offset increases elsewhere, supporting climate goals and clean energy transitions.

Key Points

33 gigatonnes, unchanged YoY, as advanced economies cut power emissions via renewables, gas, and nuclear.

✅ IEA reports emissions flat at 33 Gt despite 2.9% GDP growth

✅ Advanced economies cut power-sector CO2 via wind, solar, gas

✅ Nuclear restarts and mild weather aided reductions

Despite widespread expectations of another increase, global energy-related CO2 emissions stopped growing in 2019, according to International Energy Agency (IEA) data released today. After two years of growth, global emissions were unchanged at 33 gigatonnes in 2019, a notable marker in the global energy transition narrative even as the world economy expanded by 2.9%.

This was primarily due to declining emissions from electricity generation in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar across many markets), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power generation, the Paris-based organisation says in the report.

"We now need to work hard to make sure that 2019 is remembered as a definitive peak in global emissions, not just another pause in growth," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director. "We have the energy technologies to do this, and we have to make use of them all."

Higher nuclear power generation in advanced economies, particularly in Japan and South Korea, avoided over 50 Mt of CO2 emissions. Other factors included milder weather in several countries, and slower economic growth in some emerging markets. In China, emissions rose but were tempered by slower economic growth and higher output from low-carbon sources of electricity. Renewables continued to expand in China, and 2019 was also the first full year of operation for seven large-scale nuclear reactors in the country.

A significant decrease in emissions in advanced economies in 2019 offset continued growth elsewhere. The USA recorded the largest emissions decline on a country basis, with a fall of 140 million tonnes, or 2.9%. US emissions are now down by almost 1 gigatonne from their peak in 2000. Emissions in the European Union fell by 160 million tonnes, or 5%, in 2019 driven by reductions in the power sector as electricity producers move away from coal in the generation mix. Japan’s emissions fell by 45 million tonnes, or around 4%, the fastest pace of decline since 2009, as output from recently restarted nuclear reactors increased.

Emissions in the rest of the world grew by close to 400 million tonnes in 2019, with almost 80% of the increase coming from countries in Asia where coal-fired power generation continued to rise, and in Australia emissions rose 2% due to electricity and transport. Coal-fired power generation in advanced economies declined by nearly 15%, reflecting a sharp fall in coal-fired electricity across multiple markets, as a result of growth in renewables, coal-to-gas switching, a rise in nuclear power and weaker electricity demand.

The IEA will publish a World Energy Outlook Special Report in June that will map out how to cut global energy-related carbon emissions by one-third by 2030 and put the world on track for longer-term climate goals, a pathway that, in Canada, will require more electricity to hit net-zero. It will also hold an IEA Clean Energy Transitions Summit in Paris on 9 July, bringing together key government ministers, CEOs, investors and other major stakeholders.

Birol will discuss the results published today tomorrow at an IEA Speaker Series event at its headquarters with energy and climate ministers from Poland, which hosted COP24 in Katowice; Spain, which hosted COP25 in Madrid; and the UK, which will host COP26 in Glasgow this year, as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to break records worldwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News