Using sunlight to defeat sun's heat

Iran Combined-Cycle Power Plants drive energy efficiency, cut greenhouse gases, and expand megawatt capacity by converting thermal units; MAPNA-led upgrades boost grid reliability, reduce fuel use, and accelerate electricity generation growth nationwide.

Key Points

Upgraded thermal plants that reuse waste heat to boost efficiency, cut emissions, and add capacity to Iran's grid.

✅ 27 thermal plants converted; 160 more viable units identified

✅ Adds 12,600 MW capacity via heat recovery steam generators

✅ Combined-cycle share: 31.2% of 80.509 GW capacity

Iran has turned six percent of its thermal power plans into combined cycle plants in order to reduce greenhouse gases and save energy, with potential to lift thermal plants' PLF under rising demand, IRNA reported, quoting an energy official.

According to the MAPNA Group’s Managing Director Abbas Aliabadi, so far 27 thermal power plants have been converted to combined-cycle ones, aligning with Iran’s push to transmit power to Europe as a regional hub.

“The conversion of a thermal power plant to a combined cycle one takes about one to two years, however, it is possible for us to convert all the country’s thermal power plants into combined cycle plants over a five-year period.

Currently, a total of 478 thermal power plants are operating throughout Iran, of which 160 units could be turned into combined cycle plants. In doing so, 12,600 megawatts will be added to the country’s power capacity, supporting ongoing exports such as supplying a large share of Iraq's electricity under existing arrangements.

Related cross-border work includes deals to rehabilitate Iraq's power grid that support future exchanges.

As reported by IRNA on Wednesday, Iran’s Nominal electricity generation capacity has reached 80,509 megawatts (80.509 gigawatts), and it is deepening energy cooperation with Iraq to bolster regional reliability. The country increased its electricity generation capacity by 500 megawatts (MW) compared to the last year (ended on March 20).

Currently, with a total generation capacity of 25,083 MW (31.2 percent) combined cycle power plants account for the biggest share in the country’s total power generation capacity followed by gas power plants generating 29.9 percent, amid global trends where renewables are set to eclipse coal and regional moves such as Israel's coal reduction signal accelerating shifts. EF/MA

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Goreway Power Station Overbilling exposed by Ontario Energy Board shows IESO oversight failures, GCG gaming, and $100M in inappropriate payments at the Brampton natural gas plant, penalized with fines and repayments impacting Ontario ratepayers.

Key Points

Goreway exploited IESO GCG flaws, causing about $100M in improper payouts and fines.

✅ OEB probe flagged $89M in ineligible start-up O&M charges

✅ IESO fined Goreway $10M; majority of excess costs recovered

✅ Audit found $200M in overbilling across nine generators

Hydro customers shelled out about $100 million in "inappropriate" payments to a natural gas plant that exploited flaws in how Ontario manages its private electricity generators, according to the Ontario Energy Board.

The company operating the Goreway Power Station in Brampton "gamed" the system for at least three years, according to an investigation by the provincial energy regulator. 

The investigation also delivers stinging criticism of the provincial government's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), slamming it for a lack of oversight. The probe by the Ontario Energy Board's market surveillance panel was completed nearly a year ago, but was only made public in November because it was buried on its website without a news release. CBC News is the first media outlet to report on the investigation.  

The excess payments to Goreway Power Station included:

• $89 million in ineligible expenses billed as the costs of firing up power production. 
• $5.6 million paid in three months from a flaw in how IESO calculated top-ups for the company committing to generate power a day in advance.   
• Of $11.2 million paid to compensate the company for IESO ordering it to start or stop generating power, the investigation concluded "a substantial portion ... was the result of gaming."  

Most privately-owned natural gas-fired plants in the province do not generate electricity constantly, but start and stop production in response to fluctuating market demand, even as the energy minister has requested an halt to natural gas generation across the grid.  IESO pays them a premium for the costs of firing up production, through what it calls "generation cost guarantee" programs. 

But the investigation found IESO did little checking into the details of Goreway Power Station's billings. 

Goreway Power Station, located near Highway 407 in Brampton, Ont., is an 875 megawatt natural gas power plant. (Goreway)

"Conservatively, at least $89 million of Goreway's submissions were clearly ineligible by any reasonable measure," concludes the report.

"Goreway routinely submitted what were obviously inappropriate expenses to be reimbursed by the IESO, and ultimately borne by Ontario ratepayers,"

The investigation panel found an "extraordinary pattern" to these billings by Goreway Power Station, suggesting the IESO should have caught on sooner. The company submitted more than $100 million in start-up operating and maintenance costs during the three-year period investigated — more than all other gas-fired generators in the province combined. The company's costs per start-up were more than double the next most expensive power generator. 

"Goreway repeatedly exploited defects in the GCG (generation cost guarantee) program, and in doing so received at least $89 million in gamed GCG payments." 

Company fined $10M

The investigation covered a three-year period from when Goreway Power Station began generating power in June 2009. Investigators said that delays in releasing documents slowed down their probe, and they only obtained all the records they needed in April 2016.

The investigating panel does not have the power to impose penalties on companies it found broke the rules. 

The IESO fined Goreway Power Station $10 million. The company has also repaid IESO "a substantial portion" of the excess payments it received during its first six years of operating, but the exact figure is blacked out in the investigation report that was made public. 

The control room from which the provincial government's Independent Electricity System Operator manages Ontario's power supply. The agency is also responsible for managing contracts with private power producers.(IESO)

"Goreway does not agree with many of the draft report's findings and conclusions, including any suggestion that Goreway engaged in gaming or that it deliberately misled the IESO," writes lawyer George Vegh on behalf of the company in a response to the investigation report, dated Aug. 1.

"Goreway has implemented initiatives designed to ensure that compliance is a chief operating principle."     

The power station, located near Highway 407 in Brampton, is a joint venture between Toyota Tsusho Corp. and JERA Co. Inc. During the period under scrutiny, the project was run by Toyota Tsusho and Chubu Electric Power Inc., both headquartered in Japan. 

Investigators fear 'same situation' exists today

The report blames the provincially-controlled IESO for creating a system with defects that allowed the over-billing. 

"Goreway was able to — and repeatedly did — exploit these defects," says the investigation report. It goes on to explain the flaws "have created opportunities for exploitation, to the serious financial disadvantage of Ontario's ratepayers," even as greening Ontario's grid could entail massive costs.

The investigation suggests IESO hasn't made adequate changes to ensure it won't happen again, at a time when an analysis of a dirtier grid is raising concerns.   

"Goreway stands as a clear example of how generators are able to exploit the generation costs guarantee regime," says the report.

"The Panel is concerned that the same situation remains in place today." 

PC energy critic Todd Smith raised CBC News' report on the Goreway Power Station in Tuesday's question period. (Ontario Legislature)

After CBC News broke the story Tuesday, the provincial government was forced to respond in question period, amid a broader push for new gas plants to boost electricity production. 

"Here we have yet another gas plant scandal in Peel region that's costing electricity customers over $100 million," said PC energy critic Todd Smith. He slammed "the incompetence of a government that once again failed to look out for electricity customers." 

Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid said: "There is no excuse for any company in this province to ever game the system."

Nine companies overbilled $200M: audit 

The IESO found out about the overbilling "some time ago," said Duguid.

"They fully investigated, they've recovered most of the cost, they delivered a $10 million fine — the biggest fine on record."

The program that Goreway exploited became the subject of an audit that the IESO launched in 2011. The agency uncovered $200 million in ineligible billings by nine power producers, wrote the IESO vice president for policy Terry Young in an email to CBC News.

The IESO has recovered up to 85 per cent of those ineligible costs, Young noted.

Reforms to the design of the the program have removed the potential for overpayments and made it more efficient, he said, even as Ontario weighs embracing clean power more broadly. Last year, its total annual costs dropped to $23 million, down from $61 million in 2014.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Rate Increase proposes a 2.3% hike from April, with BCUC review, aligning below inflation and funding clean energy, electrification, and grid upgrades across British Columbia while keeping electricity prices among North America's lowest.

Key Points

A proposed 2.3% BC Hydro hike from April, under BCUC review, funds clean energy and keeps average bills below inflation.

✅ Adds about $2 per month to average residential bill

✅ Sixth straight increase below inflation since 2018

✅ Supports renewable projects and grid modernization

The British Columbia government says the province’s Crown power utility is applying for a 2.3-per-cent rate increase starting in April, with higher BC Hydro rates previously outlined, adding about $2 a month to the average residential bill.

A statement from the Energy Ministry says it’s the sixth year in a row that BC Hydro has applied for an increase below the rate of inflation, similar to a 3 per cent rise noted in a separate approval, which still trailed inflation.

It says rates are currently 15.6 per cent lower than the cumulative rate of inflation over the last seven years, starting in 2017-2018, with a provincial rate freeze among past measures, and 12.4 per cent lower than the 10-year rates plan established by the previous government in 2013.

The ministry says the “modest” rate increase application comes after consideration of a variety of options and their long-term impacts, including scenarios like a 3.75% two-year path evaluated alongside others, and the B.C. Utilities Commission is expected to decide on the plan by the end of February.

Chris O’Riley, president of BC Hydro, says the rates application would keep electricity costs in the province among the lowest in North America, even as a BC Hydro fund surplus prompted calls for changes, while supporting investments in clean energy to power vehicles, homes and businesses.

Energy Minister Josie Osborne says it’s more important than ever to keep electricity bills down, especially as Ontario hydro rates increase in a separate jurisdiction, as the cost of living rises at rates that are unsustainable for many.

“Affordable, stable BC Hydro rates are good for people, businesses and climate as we work together to power our growing economy with renewable energy instead of fossil fuels,” Osborne says in a statement issued Monday.

Earlier this year, the ministry said BC Hydro provided $315 million in cost-of-living bill credits, while in another province Manitoba Hydro scaled back an increase to ease pressure, to families and small businesses in the province, including those who receive their electricity service from FortisBC or a municipal utility.

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

Build Back Better Act Energy Savings curb volatile fossil fuel heating bills by accelerating electrification and renewable electricity, insulating households from natural gas, propane, and oil price spikes while cutting emissions and lowering energy costs.

Key Points

BBBA policies expand clean power and electrification to curb volatility, lower bills, and cut emissions.

✅ Tax credits for renewables, EVs, and efficient all-electric homes

✅ Shields households from natural gas, propane, and heating oil spikes

✅ Cuts methane, lowers bills, and improves grid reliability and jobs

Experts are forecasting serious sticker shock from home heating bills this winter. Nearly 60 percent of United States’ households heat their homes with fossil fuels, including natural gas, propane, or heating oil, and these consumers are expected to spend much more this winter because of fuel price increases.

That could greatly burden many families and businesses already operating on thin margins. Yet homes that use electricity for heating and cooking are largely insulated from the pain of volatile fuel markets, and they’re facing dramatically lower price increases as a result.

Projections say cost increases for households could range anywhere from 22% to 94% more, depending on the fuel used for heating and the severity of the winter temperatures. But the added expenditures for the 41% of U.S. households using electricity for heating are much less stark—these consumers will see only a 6% price increase on average. The projected fossil fuel price spikes are largely due to increased demand, limited supply, declining fuel stores, and shifting investment priorities in the face of climate change.

The fossil fuel industry is already seizing this moment to use high prices to persuade policymakers to vote against clean energy policies, particularly the Build Back Better Act (BBBA). Spokespeople with ties to the fossil fuel industry and some consumer groups are trying to pin higher fuel prices on the proposed legislation even before it has passed, even as analyses show the energy crisis is not spurring a green revolution on its own, let alone begun impacting fuel markets. But the claim the BBBA would cost Americans and the economy is false.

The facts tell a different story. Adopting smart climate policies and accelerating the clean energy transition are precisely the solutions to counter this vicious cycle by ending our dependance on volatile fossil fuels. The BBBA will ensure reliable, affordable clean electricity for millions of Americans, in line with a clean electricity standard many experts advocate—a key strategy for avoiding future vulnerability. Unlike fossil fuels subject to the whims of a global marketplace, wind and sunshine are always free. So renewable-generated electricity comes with an ultra-low fixed price decades into the future.

By expanding clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits, creating new incentives for efficient all-electric homes, and dedicating new funding for state and local programs, the BBBA provides practical solutions that build on lessons from Biden's climate law to protect Americans from price shocks, save consumers money, and reduce emissions fueling dangerous climate change.

What’s really causing the gas price spikes?
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s winter 2021 energy price forecasts project that homes heated with natural gas, fuel oil, and propane will see average price increases of 30%, 43%, and 54%, respectively. Those who heat their homes with electricity, on the other hand, should expect a modest 6% increase. At the pump, drivers are seeing some of the highest gas prices in nearly a decade as the U.S. energy crisis ripples through electricity, gas, and EV markets today. And the U.S. is not alone. Countries around the globe are experiencing similar price jumps, including Britain's high winter energy costs this season.

A closer look confirms the cause of these high prices is not clean energy or climate policies—it’s fossil fuels themselves.  

First, the U.S. (and the world) are just now feeling the effects of the oil and gas industry’s reduced fuel production and spending due to the pandemic. COVID-19 brought the world’s economies to a screeching halt, and most countries have not returned to pre-COVID economic activity. During the past 20 months, the oil and gas industry curtailed its production to avoid oversupply as demand fell to all-time lows. Just as businesses were reopening, stored fuel was needed to meet high demand for cooling during 2021’s hottest summer on record, driving sky-high summer energy bills for many households. February’s Texas Big Freeze also disrupted gas distribution and production.

The world is moving again and demand for goods and services is rebounding to pre-pandemic levels. But even with higher energy demand, OPEC announced it would not inject more oil into the economy. Major oil companies have also held oil and gas spending flat in 2021, with their share of overall upstream spending at 25%, compared with nearly 40% in the mid-2010s. And as climate change threats loom in the financial world, investors are reducing their exposure to the risks of stranded assets, increasingly diversifying and divesting from fossil fuels. 

Second, despite strong and sustained growth for renewable energy, energy storage, and electric vehicles, the relatively slow pace to adopt fossil fuel alternatives at scale has left U.S. households and businesses tethered to an industry well-known for price volatility. Today, some oil drillers are using profits from higher gas prices to pay back debt and reward shareholders as demanded by investors, instead of increasing supply. Rising prices for a limited commodity in high demand is generating huge profits for many of the world’s largest companies at the expense of U.S. households.

Because 48% of homes use fossil gas for heating and another 10% heat with propane and fuel oil, more than half of U.S. households will feel the impact of rising prices on their home energy bills. One in four U.S. households continues to experience a high energy burden (meaning their energy expenses consume an inordinate amount of their income), including risks of pandemic power shut-offs that deepen energy insecurity, and many are still experiencing financial hardships exacerbated by the pandemic. Those with inefficient fossil-fueled appliances, homes, and cars will be hardest hit, and many families with fixed- and lower-incomes could be forced to choose between heat or other necessities.

We have the solutions—the BBBA will unlock their benefits for all households

Short-term band-aids may be enticing, but long-term policies are the only way out of this negative feedback loop. Clean energy and building electrification will prevent more costly disasters in the future, but they’re the very solutions the fossil fuel industry fights at every turn. All-electric homes and vehicles are a natural hedge against the price spikes we’re experiencing today since renewables are inherently devoid of fuel-related price fluctuations.

RMI analysis shows all-electric single-family homes in all regions of the country have lower energy bills than a comparable mixed fuel-homes (i.e., electricity and gas). Electric vehicles also save consumers money. Research from University of California, Berkeley and Energy Innovation found consumers could save a total of $2.7 trillion in 2050—or $1,000 per year, per household for the next 30 years—if we accelerate electric vehicle deployment in the coming decade.

The BBBA would help deliver these consumer savings by expanding and expediting clean energy, while ensuring equitable adoption among lower-income households and underserved communities. Extending and expanding clean energy tax credits; new incentives for electric vehicles (including used electric vehicles); and new incentives for energy efficient homes and all-electric appliances (and electrical upgrades) will reduce up-front costs and spur widespread adoption of all-electric homes, buildings, and cars.

A combination of grants, incentives, and programs will promote private sector investments in a decarbonized economy, while also funding and supporting state and local governments already leading the way. The BBBA also allocates dedicated funding and makes important modifications (such as higher rebate amounts and greater point-of-purchase availability) to ensure these technologies are available to low-income households, underserved urban and rural communities, tribes, frontline communities, and people living in multifamily housing.

Finally, the BBBA proposes to make oil and gas polluters pay for the harm they are causing to people’s health and the climate through a methane fee. This fee would cost companies less than 1% of their revenue, meaning the industry would retain over 99% of its profits. In return return we’d see substantial reductions of a powerful greenhouse gas and a healthier environment in communities living near fossil fuel production. These benefits also come with a stronger economy—Energy Innovation analysis shows the methane fee would create more than 70,000 jobs by 2050 and boost gross domestic product more than $250 billion from 2023 to 2050.

The facts speak for themselves. Gas prices are rising because of reasons totally unrelated to smart climate and clean energy policies, which research shows actually lower costs. For the first time in more than a decade, America has the opportunity to enact a comprehensive energy policy that will yield measurable savings to consumers and free us from oil and gas industry control over our wallets.

The BBBA will help the U.S. get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and achieve a stable energy future, ensuring that today’s price spikes will be a thing of the past. Proving, once and for all, that the solution to our fossil fuel woes is not more fossil fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada 2035 Clean Electricity Target faces a 48.4GW shortfall as renewable capacity lags; accelerating wind, solar PV, grid upgrades, and coherent federal-provincial policy is vital to reach zero-emissions power and strengthen transmission and distribution.

Key Points

Canada's plan to supply nearly 100% of electricity from zero-emitting sources by 2035, requiring renewable buildout.

✅ Average adds 2.6GW; shortfall totals 48.4GW by 2035

✅ Expand wind, solar PV, storage, and grid modernization

✅ Align federal-province policy; retire or convert thermal plants

GlobalData’s latest report, ‘Canada Power Market Size and Trends by Installed Capacity, Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Technology, Regulations, Key Players and Forecast, 2022-2035’, discusses the power market structure of Canada and, amid looming power challenges, provides historical and forecast numbers for capacity, generation and consumption up to 2035. Detailed analysis of the country’s power market regulatory structure, competitive landscape and a list of major power plants are provided. The report also gives a snapshot of the power sector in the country on broad parameters of macroeconomics, supply security, generation infrastructure, transmission and distribution infrastructure, electricity import and export scenario, degree of competition, regulatory scenario, and future potential. An analysis of the deals in the country’s power sector is also included in the report.

Canada is expected to fall short of its 2035 clean electricity target after reviewing the country’s current renewable capacity activity. The country has targeted to produce nearly 100% of its electricity from zero-emitting sources by 2035, while electricity associations' net-zero goals extend to 2050; however, the country is adding only 2.6GW of annual renewable capacity additions on average every year, which would mean a cumulative shortfall of 48.4GW.

Canada has good governmental support, but it is not doing enough to ensure its targets are met. If the country is to meet its target to produce nearly 100% of electricity from zero-emitting sources by 2035, the country should both increase the capacity and efficiency of renewable power plants, as well as provide comprehensive end-to-end policies at both the federal and provincial levels, as debates over whether Ontario is embracing clean power continue across provinces. It should also involve communities and businesses in raising awareness of the benefits of adopting renewable energy.

The country has a large amount of proven natural gas and oil reserves that are proving too tempting an opportunity, and the Canadian Government is planning to increase the capacity of its gas-based plants under net-zero regulations permit some gas in the power mix, to secure real-time demand and supply. However, the country’s dependency on gas-based plants creates a major challenge to achieve its 2035 clean electricity target.

If the Canadian Government is to meet its 2035 targets, it should draw on examples from its European counterparts and add renewable capacity at a rapid pace, while balancing demand and emissions in key provinces. One advantage for Canada here is that it does not have land constraints, which is common in other major renewable power-generating countries. This could give the country an estimated 6.1GW of renewable capacity every year on average during the 2021-2035 period: enough capacity to meet its target. Most of these installations are expected to be for wind and solar PV.

Changing provincial governments are not helpful when it comes to implementing long-term projects, especially as Ontario faces looming electricity shortfalls that heighten planning risks, and continued stopping and starting of projects like this will only be damaging to renewable goals. Another way the country can achieve its target is by converting thermal power plants into clean energy plants and providing a roadmap or timeline for provinces to retire thermal power plants completely, even as scrapping coal can be costly for some systems.

Canada’s GDP (at constant prices) increased from $1,617.3bn in 2010 to $1,924.5bn in 2021, at a CAGR of 1.6%. The GDP (at constant prices) of the country declined sharply from $1,943.8bn in 2019 to $1,840.5bn in 2020 because of Covid-19 pandemic. After the recommencement of regular industrial and trade activities, the GDP grew by 4.6% in 2021 from 2020. The GDP is expected to cross pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News