Quebec, Alberta talk Energy Partnership

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Texas Heat Pump Electrification replaces natural gas furnaces with electric heating across ERCOT, cutting carbon emissions, lowering utility bills, shifting summer peaks to winter, and aligning higher loads with strong seasonal wind power generation.

Key Points

Statewide shift from gas furnaces to heat pumps in Texas, reducing emissions and bills while moving grid peak to winter.

✅ Up to $452 annual utility savings per household

✅ CO2 cuts up to 13.8 million metric tons in scenarios

✅ Winter peak rises, summer peak falls; wind aligns with load

What would happen if you converted all the single-family homes in Texas from natural gas to electric heating?

According to a paper from Pecan Street, an Austin-based energy research organization, the transition would reduce climate-warming pollution, save Texas households up to $452 annually on their utility bills, and flip the state from a summer-peaking to a winter-peaking system. And that winter peak would be “nothing the grid couldn’t evolve to handle,” according to co-author Joshua Rhodes, a view echoed by analyses outlining Texas grid reliability improvements statewide today.

The report stems from the reality that buildings must be part of any comprehensive climate action plan.

“If we do want to decarbonize, eventually we do have to move into that space. It may not be the lowest-hanging fruit, but eventually we will have to get there,” said Rhodes.

Rhodes is a founding partner of the consultancy IdeaSmiths and an analyst at Vibrant Clean Energy. Pecan Street commissioned the study, which is distilled from a larger original analysis by IdeaSmiths, at the request of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund.

In an interview, Rhodes said, “The goal and motivation were to put bounding on some of the claims that have been made about electrification: that if we electrify a lot of different end uses or sectors of the economy...power demand of the grid would double.”

Rhodes and co-author Philip R. White used an analysis tool from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory called ResStock to determine the impact of replacing natural-gas furnaces with electric heat pumps in homes across the ERCOT service territory, which encompasses 90 percent of Texas’ electricity load.

Rhodes and White ran 80,000 simulations in order to determine how heat pumps would perform in Texas homes and how the pumps would impact the ERCOT grid.

The researchers modeled the use of “standard efficiency” (ducted, SEER 14, 8.2 HSPF air-source heat pump) and “superior efficiency” (ductless, SEER 29.3, 14 HSPF mini-split heat pump) heat pump models against two weather data sets — a typical meteorological year, and 2011, which had extreme weather in both the winter and summer and highlighted blackout risks during severe heat for many regions.

Emissions were calculated using Texas’ power sector data from 2017. For energy cost calculations, IdeaSmiths used 10.93 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity and 8.4 cents per therm for natural gas.

Nothing the grid can't handle
Rhodes and White modeled six scenarios. All the scenarios resulted in annual household utility bill savings — including the two in which annual electricity demand increased — ranging from $57.82 for the standard efficiency heat pump and typical meteorological year to $451.90 for the high-efficiency heat pump and 2011 extreme weather year.

“For the average home, it was cheaper to switch. It made economic sense today to switch to a relatively high-efficiency heat pump,” said Rhodes. “Electricity bills would go up, but gas bills can go down.”

All the scenarios found carbon savings too, with CO2 reductions ranging from 2.6 million metric tons with a standard efficiency heat pump and typical meteorological year to 13.8 million metric tons with the high-efficiency heat pump in 2011-year weather.

Peak electricity demand in Texas would shift from summer to winter. Because heat pumps provide both high-efficiency space heating and cooling, in the scenario with “superior efficiency” heat pumps, the summer peak drops by nearly 24 percent to 54 gigawatts compared to ERCOT’s 71-gigawatt 2016 summer peak, even as recurring strains on the Texas power grid during extreme conditions persist.

The winter peak would increase compared to ERCOT’s 66-gigawatt 2018 winter peak, up by 22.73 percent to 81 gigawatts with standard efficiency heat pumps and up by 10.6 percent to 73 gigawatts with high-efficiency heat pumps.

“The grid could evolve to handle this. This is not a wholesale rethinking of how the grid would have to operate,” said Rhodes.

He added, “There would be some operational changes if we went to a winter-peaking grid. There would be implications for when power plants and transmission lines schedule their downtime for maintenance. But this is not beyond the realm of reality.”

And because Texas’ wind power generation is higher in winter, a winter peak would better match the expected higher load from all-electric heating to the availability of zero-carbon electricity.

A conservative estimate
The study presented what are likely conservative estimates of the potential for heat pumps to reduce carbon pollution and lower peak electricity demand, especially when paired with efficiency and demand response strategies that can flatten demand.

Electric heat pumps will become cleaner as more zero-carbon wind and solar power are added to the ERCOT grid, as utilities such as Tucson Electric Power phase out coal. By the end of 2018, 30 percent of the energy used on the ERCOT grid was from carbon-free sources.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, three in five Texas households already use electricity as their primary source of heat, much of it electric-resistance heating. Rhodes and White did not model the energy use and peak demand impacts of replacing that electric-resistance heating with much more energy efficient heat pumps.

“Most of the electric-resistance heating in Texas is located in the very far south, where they don’t have much heating at all,” Rhodes said. “You would see savings in terms of the bills there because these heat pumps definitely operate more efficiently than electric-resistance heating for most of the time.”

Rhodes and White also highlighted areas for future research. For one, their study did not factor in the upfront cost to homeowners of installing heat pumps.

“More study is needed,” they write in the Pecan Street paper, “to determine the feasibility of various ‘replacement’ scenarios and how and to what degree the upgrade costs would be shared by others.”

Research from the Rocky Mountain Institute has found that electrification of both space and water heating is cheaper for homeowners over the life of the appliances in most new construction, when transitioning from propane or heating oil, when a gas furnace and air conditioner are replaced at the same time, and when rooftop solar is coupled with electrification, aligning with broader utility trends toward electrification.

More work is also needed to assess the best way to jump-start the market for high-efficiency all-electric heating. Rhodes believes getting installers on board is key.

“Whenever a homeowner’s making a decision, if their system goes out, they lean heavily on what the HVAC company suggests or tells them because the average homeowner doesn’t know much about their systems,” he said.

More work is also needed to assess the best way to jump-start the market for high-efficiency all-electric heating, and how utility strategies such as smart home network programs affect adoption too. Rhodes believes getting installers on board is key.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Existing Nuclear Reactor Lifetime Extension sustains carbon-free electricity, supports deep decarbonization, and advances net zero climate goals by preserving the US nuclear fleet, stabilizing the grid, and complementing advanced reactors.

Key Points

Extending licenses keeps carbon-free nuclear online, stabilizes grid, and accelerates decarbonization toward net zero.

✅ Preserves 24/7 carbon-free baseload to meet climate targets

✅ Avoids emissions and replacement costs from premature retirements

✅ Complements advanced reactors; reduces capital and material needs

Nuclear power is the single largest source of carbon-free energy in the United States and currently provides nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electrical demand. As a result, many analyses have investigated the potential of future nuclear energy contributions in addressing climate change and investing in carbon-free electricity across the sector. However, few assess the value of existing nuclear power reactors.

Research led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Earth scientist Son H. Kim, with the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI), a partnership between PNNL and the University of Maryland, has added insight to the scarce literature and is the first to evaluate nuclear energy for meeting deep decarbonization goals amid rising credit risks for nuclear power identified by Moody's. Kim sought to answer the question: How much do our existing nuclear reactors contribute to the mission of meeting the country’s climate goals, both now and if their operating licenses were extended?

As the world races to discover solutions for reaching net zero as part of the global energy transition now underway, Kim’s report quantifies the economic value of bringing the existing nuclear fleet into the year 2100. It outlines its significant contributions to limiting global warming.

Plants slated to close by 2050 could be among the most important players in a challenge requiring all available carbon-free technology solutions—emerging and existing—alongside renewable electricity in many regions, the report finds. New nuclear technology also has a part to play, and its contributions could be boosted by driving down construction costs.  

“Even modest reductions in capital costs could bring big climate benefits,” said Kim. “Significant effort has been incorporated into the design of advanced reactors to reduce the use of all materials in general, such as concrete and steel because that directly translates into reduced costs and carbon emissions.”

Nuclear power reactors face an uncertain future, and some utilities face investor pressure to release climate reports as well.
The nuclear power fleet in the United States consists of 93 operating reactors across 28 states. Most of these plants were constructed and deployed between 1970-1990. Half of the fleet has outlived its original operating license lifetime of 40 years. While most reactors have had their licenses renewed for an additional 20 years, and some for another 20, the total number of reactors that will receive a lifetime extension to operate a full 80 years from deployment is uncertain.

Other countries also rely on nuclear energy. In France, for example, nuclear energy provides 70 percent of the country’s power supply. They and other countries must also consider extending the lifetime, retiring, or building new, modern reactors while navigating Canadian climate policy implications for electricity grids. However, the U.S. faces the potential retirement of many reactors in a short period—this could have a far stronger impact than the staggered closures other countries may experience.

“Our existing nuclear power plants are aging, and with their current 60-year lifetimes, nearly all of them will be gone by 2050. It’s ironic. We have a net zero goal to reach by 2050, yet our single largest source of carbon-free electricity is at risk of closure, as seen in New Zealand's electricity transition debates,“ said Kim.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Neste wind power agreement boosts renewable electricity in Finland, partnering with Ilmatar and Fortum to supply Porvoo and Naantali sites, cutting Scope 2 emissions and advancing a 2035 carbon-neutral production target via long-term PPAs.

Key Points

A PPA to source wind power for sites, cutting Scope 2 emissions and supporting Neste's 2035 carbon-neutral goal.

✅ 10-year PPA with Ilmatar; + Fortum boosts renewable electricity share.

✅ Supplies ~7% of Porvoo-Naantali electricity; capacity >20 MW.

✅ Cuts Scope 2 emissions by ~55 kt CO2e per year toward 2035 neutrality.

Neste is committed to reaching carbon neutral production by 2035, mirroring efforts such as Olympus 100% renewable electricity commitments across industry.

As part of this effort, the company is increasing the use of renewable electricity at its production sites in Finland, reflecting trends such as Ireland's green electricity targets across Europe, and has signed a wind power agreement with Ilmatar, a wind power company. The agreement has been made together with Borealis, Neste's long-term partner in the Kilpilahti area in Porvoo, Finland.

As a result of the agreement with Ilmatar, as well as that signed with Fortum at the end of 2019, and in line with global growth such as Enel's 450 MW wind project in the U.S., nearly 30% of the energy used at Neste's production sites in Porvoo and Naantali will be renewable wind power in 2022.

'Neste's purpose is to create a healthier planet for our children. Our two climate commitments play an important role in living up to this ambition, and one of them is to reach carbon neutral production by 2035. It is an enormous challenge and requires several concrete measures and investments, including innovations like offshore green hydrogen initiatives. Wind power, including advances like UK offshore wind projects, is one of the over 70 measures we have identified to reduce our production's greenhouse gas emissions,' Neste's President and CEO Peter Vanacker says.

With the ten year contract, Neste is committed to purchase about one-third of the production of Ilmatar's two wind farms, reflecting broader market moves such as BC Hydro wind deals in Canada. The total capacity of the agreement is more than 20 MW, and the energy produced will correspond to around 7% of the electricity consumption at Neste's sites in Porvoo and Naantali. The wind power deliveries are expected to begin in 2022.

The two wind power agreements help Neste to reduce the indirect greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 2 emissions defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol) of electricity purchases at its Finnish production sites, a trend mirrored by Dutch green electricity growth across Europe, annually by approximately 55 kilotons. 55 kt/a CO2e equals annual carbon footprint of more than 8,500 EU citizens.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News