Hydro One to launch an online asset analytics tool

US power grid modernization addresses aging infrastructure, climate resilience, extreme weather, EV demand, and clean energy integration, using AI, transmission upgrades, and resilient substations to improve reliability, reduce outages, and enable rapid recovery.

Key Points

US power grid modernization strengthens infrastructure for resilience, reliability, and clean energy under rising demand.

✅ Hardening substations, lines, and transformers against extreme weather

✅ Integrating EV load, DERs, and renewables into transmission and distribution

✅ Using AI, sensors, and automation to cut outages and speed restoration

The power grid in the U.S. is aging and already struggling to meet current demand, with dangerous vulnerabilities documented across the system today. It faces a future with more people — people who drive more electric cars and heat homes with more electric furnaces.

Alice Hill says that's not even the biggest problem the country's electricity infrastructure faces.

"Everything that we've built, including the electric grid, assumed a stable climate," she says. "It looked to the extremes of the past — how high the seas got, how high the winds got, the heat."

Hill is an energy and environment expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. She served on the National Security Council staff during the Obama administration, where she led the effort to develop climate resilience. She says past weather extremes can no longer safely guide future electricity planning.

"It's a little like we're building the plane as we're flying because the climate is changing right now, and it's picking up speed as it changes," Hill says.

The newly passed infrastructure package dedicates billions of dollars to updating the energy grid with smarter electricity infrastructure programs that aim to modernize operations. Hill says utility companies and public planners around the country are already having to adapt. She points to the storm surge of Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

Article continues after sponsor message

"They thought the maximum would be 12 feet," she says. "That storm surge came in close to 14 feet. It overcame the barriers at the tip of Manhattan, and then the electric grid — a substation blew out. The city that never sleeps [was] plunged into darkness."

Hill noted that Con Edison, the utility company providing New York City with energy, responded with upgrades to its grid: It buried power lines, introduced artificial intelligence, upgraded software to detect failures. But upgrading the way humans assess risk, she says, is harder.

"What happens is that some people tend to think, well, that last storm that we just had, that'll be the worst, right?" Hill says. "No, there is a worse storm ahead. And then, probably, that will be exceeded."

In 2021, the U.S. saw electricity outages for millions of people as a result of historic winter storms in Texas, a heatwave in the Pacific Northwest and Hurricane Ida along the Gulf Coast. Climate change will only make extreme weather more likely and more intense, driving longer, more frequent outages for utilities and customers.

In the West, California's grid reliability remains under scrutiny as the state navigates an ambitious clean energy shift.

And that has forced utility companies and other entities to grapple with the question: How can we prepare for blackouts and broader system stress we've never experienced before?

A modern power station in Maryland is built for the future
In the town of Edgemere, Md., the Fitzell substation of Baltimore Gas and Electric delivers electricity to homes and businesses. The facility is only a year or so old, and Laura Wright, the director of transmission and substation engineering, says it's been built with the future in mind.

She says the four transformers on site are plenty for now. And to counter the anticipated demand of population growth and a future reliance on electric cars, she says the substation has been designed for an easy upgrade.

"They're not projecting to need that additional capacity for a while, but we designed this station to be able to take that transformer out and put in a larger one," Wright says.

Slopes were designed to insulate the substation from sea level rise. And should the substation experience something like a catastrophic flooding event or deadly tornado, there's a plan for that too.

"If we were to have a failure of a transformer," Wright says, "we can bring one of those mobile transformers into the substation, park it in the substation, connect it up in place of that transformer. And we can do that in two to three days."

The Fitzell substation is a new, modern complex. Older sites can be knocked down for weeks.

That raises the question: Can the amount of money dedicated to the power grid in the new infrastructure legislation actually make meaningful changes to the energy system across the country, where studies find more blackouts than other developed nations persist?

"The infrastructure bill, unfortunately, only scratches the surface," says Daniel Cohan, an associate professor in civil and environmental engineering at Rice University.

Though the White House says $65 billion of the infrastructure legislation is dedicated to power infrastructure, a World Resources Institute analysis noted that only $27 billion would go to the electric grid — a figure that Cohan also used.

"If you drill down into how much is there for the power grid, it's only about $27 billion or so, and mainly for research and demonstration projects and some ways to get started," he says.

Cohan, who is also author of the forthcoming book Confronting Climate Gridlock, says federal taxpayer dollars can be significant but that most of the needed investment will eventually come from the private sector — from utility companies and other businesses spending "many hundreds of billions of dollars per decade," even as grid modernization affordability remains a concern. He also says the infrastructure package "misses some opportunities" to initiate that private-sector action through mandates.

"It's better than nothing, but, you know, with such momentous challenges that we face, this isn't really up to the magnitude of that challenge," Cohan says.

Cohan argues that thinking big, and not incrementally, can pay off. He believes a complete transition from fossil fuels to clean energy by 2035 is realistic and attainable — a goal the Biden administration holds — and could lead to more than just environmental benefit.

"It also can lead to more affordable electricity, more reliable electricity, a power supply that bounces back more quickly when these extreme events come through," he says. "So we're not just doing it to be green or to protect our air and climate, but we can actually have a much better, more reliable energy supply in the future."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Summer Heatwave Electricity Shut-offs strain power grids as peak demand surges, prompting load shedding, customer alerts, and energy conservation. Vulnerable populations face higher risks, while cooling centers, efficiency upgrades, and renewables bolster resilience.

Key Points

Episodic power cuts during extreme heat to balance grid load, protect infrastructure, and manage peak demand.

✅ Causes: peak demand, heatwaves, aging grid, AC load spikes.

✅ Impacts: vulnerable households, health risks, economic losses.

✅ Solutions: load shedding, cooling centers, efficiency, renewables.

As temperatures soar across various regions, millions of households are facing the threat of U.S. blackouts due to strain on power grids and heightened demand for cooling during summer heatwaves. This article delves into the causes behind these potential shut-offs, the impact on affected communities, and strategies to mitigate such risks in the future.

Summer Heatwave Challenges

Summer heatwaves bring not only discomfort but also significant challenges to electrical grids, particularly in densely populated urban areas where air conditioning units and cooling systems, along with the data center demand boom, strain the capacity of infrastructure designed to meet peak demand. As temperatures rise, the demand for electricity peaks, pushing power grids to their limits and increasing the likelihood of disruptions.

Vulnerable Populations

The risk of electricity shut-offs disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including low-income households, seniors, and individuals with medical conditions that require continuous access to electricity for cooling or medical devices. These groups are particularly susceptible to heat-related illnesses and discomfort when faced with more frequent outages during extreme heat events.

Utility Response and Management

Utility companies play a critical role in managing electricity demand and mitigating the risk of shut-offs during summer heatwaves. Strategies such as load shedding, where electricity is temporarily reduced in specific areas to balance supply and demand, and deploying AI for demand forecasting are often employed to prevent widespread outages. Additionally, utilities communicate with customers to provide updates on potential shut-offs and offer advice on energy conservation measures.

Community Resilience

Community resilience efforts are crucial in addressing the challenges posed by summer heatwaves and electricity shut-offs, especially as Canadian grids face harsher weather that heightens outage risks. Local governments, non-profit organizations, and community groups collaborate to establish cooling centers, distribute fans, and provide support services for vulnerable populations during heat emergencies. These initiatives help mitigate the health impacts of extreme heat and ensure that all residents have access to relief from oppressive temperatures.

Long-term Solutions

Investing in resilient infrastructure, enhancing energy efficiency, and promoting renewable energy sources are long-term solutions to reduce the risk of electricity shut-offs during summer heatwaves by addressing grid vulnerabilities that persist. By modernizing electrical grids, integrating smart technologies, and diversifying energy sources, communities can enhance their capacity to withstand extreme weather events and ensure reliable electricity supply year-round.

Public Awareness and Preparedness

Public awareness and preparedness are essential components of mitigating the impact of electricity shut-offs during summer heatwaves. Educating residents about energy conservation practices, encouraging the use of programmable thermostats, and promoting the importance of emergency preparedness plans empower individuals and families to navigate heat emergencies safely and effectively.

Conclusion

As summer heatwaves become more frequent and intense due to climate change impacts on the grid, the risk of electricity shut-offs poses significant challenges to communities across the globe. By implementing proactive measures, enhancing infrastructure resilience, and fostering community collaboration, stakeholders can mitigate the impact of extreme heat events and ensure that all residents have access to safe and reliable electricity during the hottest months of the year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

UK Nuclear Energy Ten Point Plan outlines support for large reactors, SMRs, and AMRs, funding Sizewell C, hydrogen production, and industrial heat to reach net zero, decarbonize transport and heating, and expand clean electricity capacity.

Key Points

A UK plan backing large, small, and advanced reactors to drive net zero via clean power, hydrogen, and industrial heat.

✅ Funds large plants (e.g., Sizewell C) under value-for-money models

✅ Invests in SMRs for factory-built, modular, lower-cost deployment

✅ Backs AMRs for high-temperature heat, hydrogen, and industry

The UK government has just announced its “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”, in which it lays out a vision for the future of energy, transport and nature in the UK. As researchers into nuclear energy, my colleagues and I were pleased to see the plan is rather favourable to new nuclear power.

It follows the advice from the UK’s Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, pledging to pursue large power plants based on current technology, and following that up with financial support for two further waves of reactor technology (“small” and “advanced” modular reactors).

This support is an important part of the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as in the years to come nuclear power will be crucial to decarbonising not just the electricity supply but the whole of society.

This chart helps illustrate the extent of the challenge faced:

Electricity generation is only responsible for a small percentage of UK emissions. William Bodel. Data: UK Climate Change Committee

Efforts to reduce emissions have so far only partially decarbonised the electricity generation sector. Reaching net zero will require immense effort to also decarbonise heating, transport, as well as shipping and aviation. The plan proposes investment in hydrogen production and electric vehicles to address these three areas – which will require, as advocates of nuclear beyond electricity argue, a lot more energy generation.

Nuclear is well-placed to provide a proportion of this energy. Reaching net zero will be a huge challenge, and industry leaders warn it may be unachievable without nuclear energy. So here’s what the announcement means for the three “waves” of nuclear power.

Who will pay for it?
But first a word on financing. To understand the strategy, it is important to realise that the reason there has been so little new activity in the UK’s nuclear sector since the 1990s is due to difficulty in financing. Nuclear plants are cheap to fuel and operate and last for a long time. In theory, this offsets the enormous upfront capital cost, and results in competitively priced electricity overall.

But ever since the electricity sector was privatised, governments have been averse to spending public money on power plants. This, combined with resulting higher borrowing costs and cheaper alternatives (gas power), has meant that in practice nuclear has been sidelined for two decades. While climate change offers an opportunity for a revival, these financial concerns remain.

Large nuclear
Hinkley Point C is a large nuclear station currently under construction in Somerset, England. The project is well-advanced, with its first reactor installed and due to come online in the middle of this decade. While the plant will provide around 7% of current UK electricity demand, its agreed electricity price is relatively expensive.

Under construction: Hinkley Point C. Ben Birchall/PA

The government’s new plan states: “We are pursuing large-scale new nuclear projects, subject to value-for-money.” This is likely a reference to the proposed Sizewell C in Suffolk, on which a final decision is expected soon. Sizewell C would be a copy of the Hinkley plant – building follow-up identical reactors achieves capital cost reductions, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have sharpened delivery focus as an alternative funding model will likely be implemented to reduce financing costs.

Other potential nuclear sites such as Wylfa and Moorside (shelved in 2018 and 2019 respectively for financial reasons) are also not mentioned, their futures presumably also covered by the “subject to value-for-money” clause.

Small nuclear
The next generation of nuclear technology, with various designs under development worldwide are smaller, cheaper, safer Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), such as the Rolls Royce “UK SMR”.

Reactors small enough to be manufactured in factories and delivered as modules can be assembled on site in much shorter times than larger designs, which in contrast are constructed mostly on site. In so doing, the capital costs per unit (and therefore borrowing costs) could be significantly lower than current new-builds.

The plan states “up to £215 million” will be made available for SMRs, Phase 2 of which will begin next year, with anticipated delivery of units around a decade from now.

Advanced nuclear
The third proposed wave of nuclear will be the Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These are truly innovative technologies, with a wide range of benefits over present designs and, like the small reactors, they are modular to keep prices down.

Crucially, advanced reactors operate at much higher temperatures – some promise in excess of 750°C compared to around 300°C in current reactors. This is important as that heat can be used in industrial processes which require high temperatures, such as ceramics, which they currently get through electrical heating or by directly burning fossil fuels. If those ceramics factories could instead use heat from AMRs placed nearby, it would reduce CO₂ emissions from industry (see chart above).

High temperatures can also be used to generate hydrogen, which the government’s plan recognises has the potential to replace natural gas in heating and eventually also in pioneering zero-emission vehicles, ships and aircraft. Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, with the downside of generating CO₂ in the process. A carbon-free alternative involves splitting water using electricity (electrolysis), though this is rather inefficient. More efficient methods which require high temperatures are yet to achieve commercialisation, however if realised, this would make high temperature nuclear particularly useful.

The government is committing “up to £170 million” for AMR research, and specifies a target for a demonstrator plant by the early 2030s. The most promising candidate is likely a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor which is possible, if ambitious, over this timescale. The Chinese currently lead the way with this technology, and their version of this reactor concept is expected soon.

In summary, the plan is welcome news for the nuclear sector, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity across the continent. While it lacks some specifics, these may be detailed in the government’s upcoming Energy White Paper. The advice to government has been acknowledged, and the sums of money mentioned throughout are significant enough to really get started on the necessary research and development.

Achieving net zero is a vast undertaking, and recognising that nuclear can make a substantial contribution if properly supported is an important step towards hitting that target.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Income-Based Electricity Rates propose a fixed monthly fee set by income as utilities and the CPUC weigh progressive pricing, aiming to cut low-income bills while PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E retain usage-based charges.

Key Points

CPUC plan adds income-tiered fixed fees to lower low-income bills while keeping per-kWh usage charges.

✅ Adds fixed monthly fees by income to complement per-kWh charges

✅ Cuts bills for low-income households; higher earners pay more

✅ Utilities say revenue neutral; conservation signals preserved

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising as electricity prices soar across the state, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level. 

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income, moving toward income-based flat-fee utility bills over time. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy, and some have introduced a plan to overturn the charges in the Legislature.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies. 

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, as regulators face calls for action from consumers and advocates. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.  

Who wants to change the fee structure?
Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing across the state. 

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income. 

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing. 

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement. 

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive. 

The proposed changes “will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Capacity Markets face scrutiny as GAO flags inconsistent data on resource adequacy and costs, urging performance goals, risk assessment, and better metrics across PJM, ISO-NE, NYISO, and MISO amid cost-recovery proposals.

Key Points

FERC capacity markets aim for resource adequacy, but GAO finds weak data and urges goals and performance reviews.

✅ GAO cites inconsistent data on resource adequacy and costs

✅ Calls for performance goals, metrics, and risk assessment

✅ Applies to PJM, ISO-NE, NYISO; MISO market is voluntary

Capacity markets may or may not be functioning properly, but FERC can't adequately make that determination, according to the GAO report.

"Available information on the level of resource adequacy ... and related costs in regions with and without capacity markets is not comprehensive or consistent," the report found. "Moreover, consistent data on historical trends in resource adequacy and related costs are not available for regions without capacity markets."

The review concluded that FERC collects some useful information in regions with and without capacity markets, but GAO said it "identified problems with data quality, such as inconsistent data."

GAO included three recommendations, including calling for FERC to take steps to improve the quality of data collected, and regularly assess the overall performance of capacity markets by developing goals for those assessments.

"FERC should develop and document an approach to regularly identify, assess, and respond to risks that capacity markets face," the report also recommended. The commission "has not established performance goals for capacity markets, measured progress against those goals, or used performance information to make changes to capacity markets as needed."

The recommendation comes as the agency is grappling with a controversial proposal to assure cost-recovery for struggling coal and nuclear plants in the power markets. So far, the proposal would only apply to power markets with capacity markets, including PJM Interconnection, the New England ISO, the New York ISO and possibly MISO. However MISO only has a voluntary capacity market, making it unclear how the proposed rule would be applied there. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News