US gives four biofuel companies $650 million in loan aid

Electricity Market Competition drives lower wholesale prices, stable retail rates, better grid reliability, and faster emissions cuts as deregulation and renewables adoption pressure utilities, improve efficiency, and enhance consumer choice in power markets.

Key Points

Electricity market competition opens supply to rivals, lowering prices, improving reliability, and reducing emissions.

✅ Wholesale prices fell faster in competitive markets

✅ Retail rates rose less than in monopoly states

✅ Fewer outages, shorter durations, improved reliability

By Bernard L. Weinstein

Electricity used to be boring.  Public utilities that provided power to homes and businesses were regulated monopolies and, by law, guaranteed a fixed rate-of-return on their generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Prices per kilowatt-hour were set by utility commissions after lengthy testimony from power companies, wanting higher rates, and consumer groups, wanting lower rates.

About 25 years ago, the electricity landscape started to change as economists and others argued that competition could lead to lower prices and stronger grid reliability. Opponents of competition argued that consumers weren’t knowledgeable enough about power markets to make intelligent choices in a competitive pricing environment. Nonetheless, today 20 states have total or partial competition for electricity, allowing independent power generators to compete in wholesale markets and retail electric providers (REPs) to compete for end-use customers, a dynamic echoed by the Alberta electricity market across North America. (Transmission, in all states, remains a regulated natural monopoly).

A recent study by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI) provides compelling evidence that competition in power markets has been a boon for consumers. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), PRI’s researchers found that wholesale electricity prices in competitive markets have been generally declining or flat, prompting discussions of free electricity business models, over the last five years. For example, compared to 2015, wholesale power prices in New England have dropped more than 44 percent, those in most Mid-Atlantic States have fallen nearly 42 percent, and in New York City they’ve declined by nearly 45 percent. Wholesale power costs have also declined in monopoly states, but at a considerably slower rate.

As for end-users, states that have competitive retail electricity markets have seen smaller price increases, as consumers can shop for electricity in Texas more cheaply than in monopoly states. Again, using EIA data, PRI found that in 14 competitive jurisdictions, retail prices essentially remained flat between 2008 and 2020. By contrast, retail prices jumped an average of 21 percent in monopoly states.  The ten states with the largest retail price increases were all monopoly-based frameworks. A 2017 report from the Retail Energy Supply Association found customers in states that still have monopoly utilities saw their average energy prices increase nearly 19 percent from 2008 to 2017 while prices fell 7 percent in competitive markets over the same period.

The PRI study also observed that competition has improved grid reliability, the recent power disruptions in California and Texas, alongside disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors across the U.S., notwithstanding. Looking at two common measures of grid resiliency, PRI’s analysis found that power interruptions were 10.4 percent lower in competitive states while the duration of outages was 6.5 percent lower.

Citing data from the EIA between 2008 and 2018, PRI reports that greenhouse gas emissions in competitive states declined on average 12.1 percent compared to 7.3 percent in monopoly states. This result is not surprising, and debates over whether Israeli power supply competition can bring cheaper electricity mirror these dynamics.  In a competitive wholesale market, independent power producers have an incentive to seek out lower-cost options, including subsidized renewables like wind and solar. By contrast, generators in monopoly markets have no such incentive as they can pass on higher costs to end-users. Perhaps the most telling case is in the monopoly state of Georgia where the cost to build nuclear Plant Vogtle has doubled from its original estimate of $14 billion 12 years ago. Overruns are estimated to cost Georgia ratepayers an average of $854, and there is no definite date for this facility to come on line. This type of mismanagement doesn’t occur in competitive markets.

Unfortunately, some critics are attempting to halt the momentum for electricity competition and have pointed to last winter’s “deep freeze” in Texas that left several million customers without power for up to a week. But this example is misplaced. Power outages in February were the result of unprecedented and severe weather conditions affecting electricity generation and fuel supply, and numerous proposals to improve Texas grid reliability have focused on weatherization and fuel resilience; the state simply did not have enough access to natural gas and wind generation to meet demand. Competitive power markets were not a factor.

The benefits of wholesale and retail competition in power markets are incontrovertible. Evidence shows that households and businesses in competitive states are paying less for electricity while grid reliability has improved. The facts also suggest that wholesale and retail competition can lead to faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In short, competition in power markets is good for consumers and good for the environment.

Bernard L. Weinstein is emeritus professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, former associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Power Revival drives decarbonization, climate change mitigation, and energy security with SMRs, Generation IV designs, baseload reliability, and policy support, complementing renewables to meet net-zero targets and growing global electricity demand.

Key Points

A global shift back to nuclear energy, leveraging SMRs and advanced reactors to cut emissions and enhance energy security.

✅ SMRs offer safer, modular, and cost-effective deployment.

✅ Provides baseload power to complement intermittent renewables.

✅ Policy support and investments accelerate advanced designs.

In recent years, nuclear power has experienced a remarkable revival in public interest, policy discussions, and energy investment. Once overshadowed by controversies surrounding safety, waste management, and high costs, nuclear energy is now being reexamined as a vital component of the global energy transition, despite recurring questions such as whether it is in decline from some commentators. Here's why nuclear power is "so hot" right now:

1. Climate Change Urgency

One of the most compelling reasons for the renewed interest in nuclear energy is the urgent need to address climate change. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power generates electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions during operation. As countries rush to meet net-zero carbon targets, evidence that net-zero may require nuclear is gaining traction, and nuclear offers a reliable, large-scale alternative to complement renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

2. Energy Security and Independence

Geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions have exposed vulnerabilities in relying on imported fossil fuels, and Europe's shrinking nuclear capacity has sharpened concerns over resilience. Nuclear power provides a domestic, stable energy source that can operate independently of volatile global markets. For many nations, this has become a strategic priority, reducing dependence on politically sensitive energy imports.

3. Advances in Technology

Modern innovations in nuclear technology are transforming the industry. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are leading the way as part of next-gen nuclear innovation, offering safer, more affordable, and flexible options for nuclear deployment. Unlike traditional large-scale reactors, SMRs can be built faster, scaled to specific energy needs, and deployed in remote or smaller markets.

Additionally, advances in reactor designs, such as Generation IV reactors and fusion research, promise to address longstanding concerns like waste management and safety. For example, some new designs can recycle spent fuel or run on alternative fuels, significantly reducing radioactive waste.

4. Public Perception Is Shifting

Public opinion on nuclear power is also changing. While the industry faced backlash after high-profile incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, increasing awareness of climate change and energy security is prompting many to reconsider, including renewed debates such as Germany's potential nuclear return in policy circles. A younger, climate-conscious generation views nuclear energy not as a relic of the past, but as an essential tool for a sustainable future.

5. Renewables Alone Are Not Enough

While renewable energy sources like solar and wind have grown exponentially, their intermittent nature remains a challenge. Energy storage technologies, such as batteries, have not yet matured enough to fully bridge the gap. Nuclear power, with its ability to provide constant, "baseload" energy, as France's fleet demonstrates in practice, serves as an ideal complement to variable renewables in a decarbonized energy mix.

6. Government Support and Investment

Policymakers are taking action to bolster the nuclear sector. Many countries are including nuclear energy in their clean energy plans, offering subsidies, grants, and streamlined regulations to accelerate its deployment. For instance, the United States has allocated billions of dollars to support advanced nuclear projects, the UK's green industrial revolution outlines support for upcoming reactor waves, while Europe has classified nuclear power as "sustainable" under its green taxonomy.

7. Global Energy Demand Is Growing

As populations and economies grow, so does the demand for electricity. Developing nations, in particular, are seeking energy solutions that can support industrialization while limiting environmental impact. Nuclear energy is being embraced as a way to meet these dual objectives, especially in regions with limited access to consistent renewable energy resources.

Challenges Ahead

Despite its potential, nuclear energy is not without its challenges. High upfront costs, lengthy construction timelines, and public concerns over safety and waste remain significant hurdles. The industry will need to address these issues while continuing to innovate and build public trust.

Nuclear power's resurgence is driven by its unique ability to tackle some of the most pressing challenges of our time: climate change, energy security, and the growing demand for electricity. With advances in technology, changing perceptions, and robust policy support, nuclear energy is poised to play a critical role in the global transition to a sustainable and secure energy future.

In a world increasingly shaped by the need for clean and reliable power, nuclear energy has once again become a hot topic—and for good reason.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Off-Peak Electricity Rate offers 8.2 cents per kWh for 24 hours, supporting Time-of-Use and Tiered Regulated Price Plan customers, including residential, small business, and farms, under Ontario Energy Board guidelines during temporary relief.

Key Points

A temporary 8.2 cents per kWh all-day price for RPP customers, covering TOU and Tiered users across Ontario.

✅ Applies 24 hours daily at 8.2 cents per kWh for 21 days

✅ Covers residential, small business, and farm RPP customers

✅ Valid for TOU and Tiered plans set by the Ontario Energy Board

 The Ontario government has announced electricity relief with electricity prices set at the off-peak price of 8.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, 24 hours per day for 21 days starting January 18, 2022, until the end of day February 7, 2022, for all Regulated Price Plan customers. The off-peak rate will apply automatically to residential, small businesses and farms who pay Time-of-Use or Tiered prices set by the Ontario Energy Board.

This rate relief includes extended off-peak rates to support small businesses, as well as workers and families spending more time at home while the province is in Modified Step Two of the Roadmap to Reopen.

As part of our mandate, we set the rates that your utility charges for the electricity you use in your home or small business. These rates appear on the Electricity line of your bill, and we administer protections such as disconnection moratoriums for residential customers. We also set the Delivery rates that cover the cost to deliver electricity to most residential and small business customers.

Types of electricity rates

For residential and small business customers that buy electricity from their utility, there are two different types of rates (also called prices here), and Ontario also provides stable electricity pricing for larger users. The Ontario Energy Board sets both once a year on November 1:

Time-of-Use (TOU)

With TOU prices, the price depends on when you use electricity, including options like ultra-low overnight pricing that encourage off-peak use.

There are three TOU price periods:

• Off-peak, when demand for electricity is lowest and new offerings like the Ultra-Low Overnight plan can encourage shifting usage. Ontario households use most of their electricity – nearly two thirds of it – during off-peak hours.
• Mid-peak, when demand for electricity is moderate. These periods are during the daytime, but not the busiest times of day, and utilities like BC Hydro are exploring similar TOU structures as well.
• On-peak, when demand for electricity is generally higher. These are the busier times of day – generally when people are cooking, starting up their computers and running heaters or air conditioners.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Electricity System Climate Resilience underpins grid reliability amid heatwaves and drought, integrating solar, wind, hydropower, nuclear, storage, and demand response with efficient transmission, flexibility, and planning to secure power for homes, industry, and services.

Key Points

Power systems capacity to endure extreme weather and integrate clean energy, maintaining reliability and flexibility.

✅ Grid hardening, transmission upgrades, and digital forecasting.

✅ Flexible low-carbon supply: hydropower, nuclear, storage.

✅ Demand response, efficient cooling, and regional integration.

Summer is just half done in the northern hemisphere and yet we are already seeing electricity systems around the world struggling to cope with the severe strain of heatwaves and low rainfall.

These challenges highlight the urgent need for strong and well-planned policies and investments to improve the security of our electricity systems, which supply power to homes, offices, factories, hospitals, schools and other fundamental parts of our economies and societies. This means making our electricity systems more resilient to the effects of global warming – and more efficient and flexible as they incorporate rising levels of solar and wind power, as solar is now the cheapest electricity in history according to the IEA, which will be critical for reaching net-zero emissions in time to prevent even worse impacts from climate change.

A range of different countries, including the US, Canada and Iraq, have been hard hit by extreme weather recently in the form of unusually high temperatures. In North America, the heat soared to record levels in the Pacific Northwest. An electricity watchdog says that five US regions face elevated risks to the security of their electricity supplies this summer, underscoring US grid climate risks that could worsen, and that California’s risk level is even higher.

Heatwaves put pressure on electricity systems in multiple ways. They increase demand as people turn up air conditioning, driving higher US electricity bills for many households, and as some appliances work harder to maintain cool temperatures. At the same time, higher temperatures can also squeeze electricity supplies by reducing the efficiency and capacity of traditional thermal power plants, such as coal, natural gas and nuclear. Extreme heat can reduce the availability of water for cooling plants or transporting fuel, forcing operators to reduce their output. In some cases, it can result in power plants having to shut down, increasing the risk of outages. If the heat wave is spread over a wide geographic area, it also reduces the scope for one region to draw on spare capacity from its neighbours, since they have to devote their available resources to meeting local demand.

A recent heatwave in Texas forced the grid operator to call for customers to raise their thermostats’ temperatures to conserve energy. Power generating companies suffered outages at much higher rates than expected, providing an unwelcome reminder of February’s brutal cold snap when outages – primarily from natural gas power plants – left up to 5 million customers across the US without power over a period of four days.

At the same time, lower than average rainfall and prolonged dry weather conditions are raising concerns about hydropower’s electricity output in various parts of the world, including Brazil, China, India and North America. The risks that climate change brings in the form of droughts adds to the challenges faced by hydropower, the world’s largest source of clean electricity, highlighting the importance of developing hydropower resources sustainably and ensuring projects are climate resilient.

The recent spate of heatwaves and unusually long dry spells are fresh warnings of what lies ahead as our climate continues to heat up: an increase in the scale and frequency of extreme weather events, which will cause greater impacts and strains on our energy infrastructure.

Heatwaves will increase the challenge of meeting electricity demand while also decarbonizing the electricity supply. Today, the amount of energy used for cooling spaces – such as homes, shops, offices and factories – is responsible for around 1 billion tonnes of global CO2 emissions. In particular, energy for cooling can have a major impact on peak periods of electricity demand, intensifying the stress on the system. Since the energy demand used for air conditioners worldwide could triple by 2050, these strains are set to grow unless governments introduce stronger policy measures to improve the energy efficiency of air conditioning units.

Electricity security is crucial for smooth energy transitions
Many countries around the world have announced ambitious targets for reaching net-zero emissions by the middle of this century and are seeking to step up their clean energy transitions. The IEA’s recent Global Roadmap to Net Zero by 2050 makes it clear that achieving this formidable goal will require much more electricity, much cleaner electricity and for that electricity to be used in far more parts of our economies than it is today. This means electricity reaching much deeper into sectors such as transport (e.g. EVs), buildings (e.g. heat-pumps) and industry (e.g. electric-arc steel furnaces), and in countries like New Zealand's electrification plans it is accelerating broader efforts. As clean electricity’s role in the economy expands and that of fossil fuels declines, secure supplies of electricity become ever-more important. This is why the climate resilience of the electricity sector must be a top priority in governments’ policy agendas.

Changing climate patterns and more frequent extreme weather events can hit all types of power generation sources. Hydropower resources typically suffer in hot and dry conditions, but so do nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. These sources currently help ensure electricity systems have the flexibility and capacity to integrate rising shares of solar and wind power, whose output can vary depending on the weather and the time of day or year.

As governments and utilities pursue the decarbonization of electricity systems, mainly through growing levels of solar and wind, and carbon-free electricity options, they need to ensure they have sufficiently robust and diverse sources of flexibility to ensure secure supplies, including in the event of extreme weather events. This means that the possible decommissioning of existing power generation assets requires careful assessments that take into account the importance of climate resilience.

Ensuring electricity security requires long-term planning and stronger policy action and investment
The IEA is committed to helping governments make well-informed decisions as they seek to build a clean and secure energy future. With this in mind, here are seven areas for action for ensuring electricity systems are as resilient as possible to climate risks:

1. Invest in electricity grids to make them more resilient to extreme weather. Spending today is far below the levels needed to double the investment for cleaner, more electrified energy systems, particularly in emerging and developing economies. Economic recovery plans from the COVID-19 crisis offer clear opportunities for economies that have the resources to invest in enhancing grid infrastructure, but much greater international efforts are required to mobilize and channel the necessary spending in emerging and developing economies.

2. Improve the efficiency of cooling equipment. Cost-effective technology already exists in most markets to double or triple the efficiency of cooling equipment. Investing in higher efficiency could halve future energy demand and reduce investment and operating costs by $3 trillion between now and 2050. In advance of COP26, the Super-Efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment (SEAD) initiative is encouraging countries to sign up to double the energy efficiency of equipment sold in their countries by 2030.

3. Enable the growth of flexible low-carbon power sources to support more solar and wind. These electricity generation sources include hydropower and nuclear, for countries who see a role for one or both of them in their energy transitions. Guaranteeing hydropower resilience in a warming climate will require sophisticated methods and tools – such as the ones implemented in Brazil – to calculate the necessary level of reserves and optimize management of reservoirs and hydropower output even in exceptional conditions. Batteries and other forms of storage, combined with solar or wind, can also provide important amounts of flexibility by storing power and releasing it when needed.

4. Increase other sources of electricity system flexibility. Demand-response and digital technologies can play an important role. The IEA estimates that only a small fraction of the huge potential for demand response in the buildings sector is actually tapped at the moment. New policies, which associate digitalization and financial behavioural incentives, could unlock more flexibility. Regional integration of electricity systems across national borders can also increase access to flexible resources.

5. Expedite the development and deployment of new technologies for managing extreme weather threats. The capabilities of electricity utilities in forecasting and situation awareness should be enhanced with the support of the latest information and communication technologies.

6. Make climate resilience a central part of policy-making and system planning. The interconnected nature of recent extreme weather events reminds us that we need to account for many contingencies when planning resilient power systems. Climate resilience should be integral to policy-making by governments and power system planning by utilities and relevant industries, and debates over Canadian climate policy underscore how grid implications must be considered. According to the recent IEA report on climate resilience, only nine out of 38 IEA member and association countries include concrete actions on climate adaptation and resilience for every segment of electricity systems.

7. Strengthen international cooperation on electricity security. Electricity underpins vital services and basic needs, such as health systems, water supplies and other energy industries. Maintaining a secure electricity supply is thus of critical importance. The costs of doing nothing in the face of growing climate threats are becoming abundantly clear. The IEA is working with all countries in the IEA family, as well as others around the world, by providing unrivalled data, analysis and policy advice on electricity security issues. It is also bringing governments together at various levels to share experiences and best practices, and identify how to hasten the shift to cleaner and more resilient energy systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Electricity Grid Decarbonization outlines the IESO's net-zero pathway: $400B investment, nuclear expansion, renewables, hydrogen, storage, and demand management to double capacity by 2050 while initiating a 2027 natural gas moratorium.

Key Points

A 2050 plan to double capacity, retire gas, and invest $400B in nuclear, renewables, and storage for a net-zero grid.

✅ $400B over 25 years to meet net-zero electricity by 2050

✅ Capacity doubles to 88,000 MW; demand grows ~2% annually

✅ 2027 gas moratorium; build nuclear, renewables, storage

Ontario will need to spend $400 billion over the next 25 years in order to decarbonize the electricity grid and embrace clean power according to a new report by the province’s electricity system manager that’s now being considered by the Ford government.

The Independent System Electricity Operator (IESO) was tasked with laying out a path to reducing Ontario’s reliance on natural gas for electricity generation and what it would take to decarbonize the entire electricity grid by 2050.

Meeting the goal, the IESO concluded, will require an “aggressive” approach of doubling the electricity capacity in Ontario over the next two-and-a-half decades — from 42,000 MW to 88,000 MW — by investing in nuclear, hydrogen and wind and solar power while implementing conservation policies and managing demand.

“The process of fully eliminating emissions from the grid itself will be a significant and complex undertaking,” IESO president Lesley Gallinger said in a news release.

The road to decarbonization, the IESO said, begins with a moratorium on natural gas power generation starting in 2027 as long as the province has “sufficient, non-emitting supply” to meet the growing demands on the grid.

The approach, however, comes with significant risks.

The IESO said hydroelectric and nuclear facilities can take 10 to 15 years to build and if costs aren’t controlled the plan could drive up the price of clean electricity, turning homeowners and businesses away from electrification.

“Rapidly rising electricity costs could discourage electrification, stifle economic growth or hurt consumers with low incomes,” the report states.

The IESO said the province will need to take several “no regret” actions, including selecting sites and planning to construct new large-scale nuclear plants as well as hydroelectric and energy storage projects and expanding energy-efficiency programs beyond 2024.

READ MORE: Ontario faces calls to dramatically increase energy efficiency rebate programs

Ontario’s minister of energy didn’t immediately commit to implementing the recommendations, citing the need to consult with stakeholders first.

“I look forward to launching a consultation in the new year on next steps from today’s report, including the potential development of major nuclear, hydroelectric and transmissions projects,” Todd Smith said in a statement.

Currently, electricity demand is increasing by roughly two per cent per year, raising concerns Ontario could be short of electricity in the coming years as the manufacturing and transportation sectors electrify and as more sectors consider decarbonization.

At the same time, the province’s energy supply is facing “downward pressure” with the Pickering nuclear power plant slated to wind down operations and the Darlington nuclear generating station under active refurbishment.

To meet the energy need, the Ford government said it intended to extend the life of the Pickering plant until 2026.

READ MORE: Ontario planning to keep Pickering nuclear power station open until 2026

But to prepare for the increase, the Ontario government was told the province would also need to build new natural gas facilities to bridge Ontario’s electricity supply gap in the near term — a recommendation the Ford government agreed to.

The IESO said a request for proposals has been opened and the province is looking for host communities, with the expectation that existing facilities would be upgraded before projects on undeveloped land would be considered.

The IESO said the contract for any new facilities would expire in 2040, and all natural gas facilities would be retired in the 2040s.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News