Regulators wonÂ’t delay power line proceedings

California Electricity Prices are surging across PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E territories, driven by fixed grid costs, wildfire mitigation, CARE subsidies, and Net Energy Metering, burdening low-income renters and increasing statewide utility debt, CPUC reports show.

Key Points

High rates driven by fixed grid costs and policies, burdening low-income customers across PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E.

✅ Fixed costs: transmission, distribution, wildfire mitigation

✅ Solar NEM shifts grid costs onto remaining ratepayers

✅ CPUC, CARE, LIHEAP aim to relieve rising utility debt

California's electricity prices are among the highest in the country, new research says, and those costs are falling disproportionately on a customer base that's already struggling to pay their bills.

PG&E customers pay about 80 percent more per kilowatt-hour than the national average, according to a study by the energy institute at UC Berkeley's Haas Business School with the nonprofit think tank Next 10. The study analyzed the rates of the state's three largest investor-owned utilities and found that Southern California Edison charged 45 percent more than the national average, while San Diego Gas & Electric charged double. Even low-income residents enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program paid more than the average American.

"California's retail prices are out of line with utilities across the country," said UC Berkeley assistant professor and study co-author Meredith Fowlie, citing Hawaii and some New England states among the outliers with even higher rates. "And they're increasing, as regulators face calls for action across the state."

So why are prices so high?
One reason is that California's size and geography inflate the "fixed" costs of operating its electric system, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid in parallel, which include maintenance, generation, transmission, and distribution as well as public programs like CARE and wildfire mitigation, according to the study. Those costs don't change based on how much electricity residents consume, yet between 66 and 77 percent of Californians' electricity bills are used to offset the costs of those programs, the study found.

These are legitimate expenses, Fowlie said. However, because lower-income residents use only moderately less electricity than higher income households, they end up with a disproportionate share of the burden, according to the study. And while the bills of older, wealthier Californians continue to decrease as they adopt cost-efficient alternatives like the state's Net Energy Metering solar program and the resulting solar power cost shift dynamic, costs will keep rising for a shrinking customer base composed mostly of low- and middle-income renters who still use electricity as their main energy source.

"When households adopt solar, they're not paying their fair share," Fowlie said. While solar users generate power that decreases their bills, they still rely on the state's electric grid for much of their power consumption - without paying for its fixed costs like others do.

"As this continues it's going to make electricity even more unaffordable," said F. Noel Perry, founder of Next 10, which funds nonpartisan research on the economy and environment.

PG&E this month raised its electricity rates 3.7 percent, amounting to a $5.01 a month increase for the average residential customer, who now pays $138.85 a month for electricity. It was the second increase this year, as regulators consider major changes to electric bills statewide, said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, who noted that higher rates are particularly difficult for those who have lost their jobs in the pandemic. The California Public Utilities Commission last year approved a PG&E plan for more incremental increases through Dec. 31, 2022.

PG&E spokesperson Kristi Jourdan said in an email statement that the company was committed to keeping prices as low as possible as the state weighs income-based flat-fee utility bills proposals, and that although some programs are meant to be subsidized through rates, "in other cases, given that some customers have greater access to energy alternatives, the remaining customers - often those with limited means - are left paying unintended subsidies."

The costs quickly became overwhelming for Fretea Sylver, who rents a small house in Castro Valley and lost much of her work as the owner of a small woodwork business early in the pandemic. "They're little tiny changes but they accumulate. You turn around and you're like wait a second, why is my bill $20 more?," Sylver said. "And you have to pay it, no matter what."

Many more are unable to pay. Between February and December of last year, Californians accumulated more than $650 million in late payments from their utility providers, according to an analysis by the CPUC. In 2019, utility debt fell $71,646,869 from the prior year.

Sylver, who was on unemployment for 10 months last year, accumulated over $600 in unpaid PG&E bills. "We sort of went into a bit of debt, having to use credit cards and loans to sustain what we had to pay for. We're trying to catch up," Sylver said. The family received some help from the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides up to $1,000 to those who are late on their utility bills.

The study identified improvements to make California's power grid more equitable, such as income-based fixed electricity charges for the grid's cost that are based on income. Republican state senators this week called on the state to use federal relief money to forgive the billions Californians owe in utility debt, even as some lawmakers move to overturn income-based utility charges amid ongoing debate. Californians are currently protected by a statewide moratorium on disconnection for nonpayment of electricity bills through June 30. The CPUC this month began taking public input on the issue of how to grant some relief to those who have fallen behind on their utility bills.

This article is part of the California Divide, a collaboration among newsrooms examining income inequality and economic survival in California.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Quebec Churchill Falls power deal renewal spotlights Hydro-Que9bec's Labrador hydroelectricity, Churchill River contract extension, Gull Island prospects, and Innu Nation rights, as demand from EV battery manufacturing and the green economy outpaces provincial supply.

Key Points

Extending Quebec's low-price Churchill Falls contract to secure Labrador hydro and address Innu Nation rights.

✅ 1969 contract delivers ~30 TWh at very low fixed price.

✅ Newfoundland seeks higher rates, equity, and consultation.

✅ Innu Nation demands benefits, consent, and land remediation.

As Quebec prepares to ramp up electricity production to meet its ambitious economic goals, the government is trying to extend a power deal that has caused decades of resentment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Around 15 per cent of Quebec's electricity comes from the Churchill Falls dam in Labrador, through a deal set to expire in 2041 that is widely seen as unfair. Quebec Premier François Legault not only wants to extend the agreement, he wants another dam on the Churchill River and, for now, has closed the door on nuclear power as an option to help make his province what he has called a "world leader for the green economy."

But renewing that contract "won't be easy," Normand Mousseau, scientific director of the Trottier Energy Institute at Polytechnique Montréal, said in a recent interview. Extending the Churchill Falls deal is not essential to meet Quebec's energy plans, but without it, Mousseau said, "we would have some problems."

The Legault government is enticing global companies, such as manufacturers of electric vehicle batteries, to set up shop in the province and access its hydroelectricity. But demand for Quebec's power has exceeded its supply, and Ontario has chosen not to renew a power-purchase deal with Quebec, limiting the government's vision.

Last month, Quebec's hydro utility released its strategic plan calling for a production increase of 60 terawatt hours by 2035, which represents the installed capacity of three of Hydro-Québec's largest facilities. Churchill Falls produces roughly 30 terawatt hours, and Quebec would need to replace that power if it can't strike a deal to extend the contract, Mousseau said.

If Quebec wants to keep buying power from Churchill Falls, the government is going to have to pay more, said Mousseau, who is also a physics professor at Université de Montréal. "We're paying one-fifth of a cent a kilowatt hour — that's not much," he said.

Under the 1969 contract, Quebec assumed most of the financial risk of building the Churchill Falls dam in exchange for the right to buy power at a fixed price. The deal has generated more than $28 billion for Hydro-Québec; it has returned $2 billion to Newfoundland and Labrador.

That lopsided deal has stoked anti-Quebec sentiment in Newfoundland and Labrador and contributed to nationalist politics, including threats of separation from Canada around a decade and a half ago, when Danny Williams was premier, said Jerry Bannister, a history professor at Dalhousie University.

"We tend to forget what it was like during the Williams era — he hauled down the Canadian flag," Bannister said. "There was a type of angry, combative nationalism which defined energy development. And particularly Muskrat Falls, it was payback, it was revenge."

Power from the Muskrat Falls generating station, also on the Churchill River, would be sold to Nova Scotia instead of Quebec. But that project has suffered technical problems and cost overruns since, and as of June 29, the price of Muskrat Falls had reached $13.5 billion; the province had estimated the total cost would be $7.4 billion when it sanctioned the project in 2012.

Anti-Quebec feelings may have subsided, but Bannister said the Churchill Falls deal continues to influence Newfoundland politics.

In September, Premier Andrew Furey said Legault would have to show him the money(opens in a new tab) to extend th Legault's office said Tuesday that discussions are ongoing, while the Newfoundland and Labrador government said in an emailed statement Thursday that it wants to maximize the value of its "assets and future opportunities" along the Churchill River.

Whatever negotiations are happening, Grand Chief Simon Pokue of the Innu Nation of Labrador(opens in a new tab) said he has been left out of them.

Churchill Falls flooded 6,500 square kilometres of traditional Innu land, Pokue said, adding that in response, the Innu Nation filed a $4 billion lawsuit against Hydro-Québec in 2020, which is ongoing.

"A lot of damage has been done to our lands, our land is flooded and we'll never see it again," Pokue said in a recent interview. "Nobody will ever repair that."

As well, a portion of Muskrat Falls profits was supposed to go to the Innu Nation, but the cost overruns and a refinancing deal between the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador have limited whatever money they will see.

If Legault wants another dam on the Churchill River, at Gull Island, the Innu Nation needs to be paid the kind of money it was expecting from Muskrat Falls, he said.

"You did it once, but you're not going to do it again," Pokue said. "It's not going to start until we are consulted and involved."

Meanwhile, Quebec may face competition for Churchill Falls power, Mousseau said, with at least one Labrador mining company expressing interest in buying a significant portion of its output — though he added that the dam's capacity could be increased. The low price paid by Quebec has meant there has been little incentive to upgrade the plant's turbines.

As demand for electricity rises across the country, Mousseau said he thinks it would be better for provinces to work together, sharing expertise and costs, for example through NB Power deals to import more Quebec electricity as they look across provincial borders to find the best locations for projects, rather than acting as rivals.

"We need to talk and work with other provinces, and some propose an independent planning body to guide this, but for this you need to build confidence, and there's no confidence from the Newfoundland side with respect to Quebec," he said. "So that's a challenge: how do you work on this relationship that has been broken for 50 years?"e contract, but the two premiers have said little since.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Crosbie Hydro Energy Action Plan outlines rate mitigation for Muskrat Falls, leveraging Nalcor oil revenues, export sales, Holyrood savings, and potential Hydro-Quebec taxation to keep Newfoundland and Labrador electricity rates near 14.67 cents/kWh.

Key Points

PC plan to cap post-Muskrat rates by using Nalcor revenues, exports, and savings, with optional Accord funds.

✅ $575.4M yearly to hold rates near 14.67 cents/kWh

✅ Sources: Nalcor oil $231M, Holyrood $150M, rates/dividends $123.4M

✅ Options: export sales, restructuring, Atlantic Accord, HQ tax

Newfoundland and Labrador PC Leader Ches Crosbie says Muskrat Falls won't drive up electricity rates, a goal consistent with an agreement to shield ratepayers from cost overruns, if he's elected premier.

According to Crosbie, who presented the party's Crosbie Hydro Energy Action Plan — acronym CHEAP — at a press conference Monday, $575.4 million is needed per year in order to keep rates from ballooning past 14.67 cents per kilowatt hour.

Here's where he thinks the money could come from:

• Hydro rates and dividends — $123.4 million
• Export sales — $40.1 million
• Nalcor restructuring — $30 million
• Holyrood savings — $150  million
• Nalcor oil revenue — $231 million

The oil money, Crosbie said, isn't going into government coffers but being invested into the offshore which, he said, is a good place for it.

"But the plan from the beginning around Muskrat Falls was that if there was need for it — for mitigation for rates — that those revenues and operating cash flows from Nalcor oil and gas would be available to be recycled into rate mitigation, as reflected in a recent financial update on the pandemic's impact. and that's what we're going to have to do," he said.

According to Crosbie, his numbers come from the preliminary stage of the Public Utilities Board process, even as rate mitigation talks have lacked public details.

This is a recent aerial view of the Muskrat Falls project in central Labrador. The project is more than 90 per cent complete, with first power forecast for late 2019, alongside Ottawa's $5.2B support for the project. (Nalcor)

"I'm telling you this is the best information available to anyone outside of government," he said. "We're working on what we can."

The PUB estimated Nalcor restructuring could save between $10 million and $15 million, according to Crosbie, but he figures there's "enough duplication and overpayment involved in the way things are now set up that we can find $30 million there."

Currently, provincial ratepayers pay about 12 cents per kilowatt hour as electricity users have started paying for Muskrat Falls costs.

Crosbie's $575.4-million figure would put rates at 14.67 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2021, where his plan pledges to keep them.

A recent Public Utilities Board Report says there's a potential $10 million to $15 million in savings from Nalcor, but Crosbie says he can find $30 million. (CBC)

"The promise is that Muskrat Falls, when it comes online — comes in service — will not increase your rates. Between now and when that happens there are rate increases already in the pipeline up to that level of [14.67 cents per kilowatt-hour] … so that is the baseline target rate at which rates will be kept.

"In other words, Muskrat will not drive up prices for electricity to consumers beyond that point."

In addition to those savings, Crosbie's plan outlined two further steps.

"We think it could be done out of the resources that I've just identified now, but if there's a problem with that, and as a temporary measure, we can use a modest amount of the Atlantic Accord review, fiscal review, revenues," he said.

Plan 'nothing new'

Premier Dwight Ball slammed the plan at the House of Assembly on Monday, saying it lacked insight.

"It was a copy and paste exercise," he told reporters. "There's nothing new in that plan. Not at all."

"We're not leaving any stone unturned of where the opportunity would be to actually generate revenue," he said.  "We are genuinely concerned about rate mitigation and we've got to get a plan in place."

Potential to tax Hydro-Québec

Crosbie also said there's potential to tax Hydro-Québec.

According to Crosbie, tax exemptions that expired in 2016 allow the province to tax exports from the Upper Churchill, which, he said, could result in "hundreds of millions or billions" in revenue.

"It's not my philosophy to immediately go and do that because that would generate litigation — who needs more of that? — but we do need to let Quebec know that we're very aware of that, and aware of that opportunity, and invite them to come talk about a whole host of issues," Crosbie said.

Crosbie said the tax would also have to be applied to domestic consumption.

"But so massive is the potential revenue from the Upper Churchill export that there would be ways to mitigate that and negate the effect of that on consumers in the province."

Crosbie said with the Atlantic Accord revenue, he could still present a balanced budget by 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Electrification Strategy 2050 outlines shifting transport, buildings, and industry to clean power, accelerating EV adoption, heat pumps, and direct electrification to meet targets, reduce emissions, and replace fossil fuels with renewables and low-carbon grids.

Key Points

EU plan to cut emissions 95% by 2050 by electrifying transport, buildings and industry with clean power.

✅ 60% of final energy from electricity by 2050

✅ EVs dominate transport; up to 63% electric share

✅ Heat pumps electrify buildings; industry to 50% direct

The European Union has one of the most ambitious carbon emission reduction goals under the global Paris Agreement on climate change – a 95% reduction by 2050.

It seems that everyone has an idea for how to get there. Some are pushing nuclear energy. Others are pushing for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels and a switch to renewables.

Today the European electricity industry came out with their own plan, amid expectations of greater electricity price volatility in Europe in the coming years. A study published today by Eurelectric, the trade body of the European power sector, concludes that the 2050 goal will not be possible without a major shift to electricity in transport, buildings and industry.

The study finds that for the EU to reach its 95% emissions reduction target, electricity needs to cover at least 60 percent of final energy consumption by 2050. This would require a 1.5 percent year-on-year growth of EU electricity use, with evidence that EVs could raise electricity demand significantly in other markets, while at the same time reducing the EU’s overall energy consumption by 1.3 percent per year.

#google#

Transport is one of the areas where electrification can deliver the most benefit, because an electric car causes far less carbon emissions than a conventional vehicle, with e-mobility emerging as a key driver of electricity demand even if that electricity is generated in a fossil fuel power plant.

In the most ambitious scenario presented by the study, up to 63 percent of total final energy consumption in transport will be electric by 2050, and some analyses suggest that mass adoption of electric cars could occur much sooner, further accelerating progress.

Building have big potential as well, according to the study, with 45 to 63 percent of buildings energy consumption could be electric in 2050 by converting to electric heat pumps. Industrial processes could technically be electrified with up to 50 percent direct electrification in 2050, according to the study. The relative competitiveness of electricity against other carbon-neutral fuels will be the critical driver for this shift, but grid carbon intensity differs across markets, such as where fossil fuels still supply a notable share of generation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News