Northwestern Ontario Hydro project approved for Crown land

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Energiewende Lessons highlight climate policy tradeoffs, as renewables, wind and solar face grid constraints, coal phase-out delays, rising electricity prices, and public opposition, informing Canada on diversification, hydro, oil and gas, and balanced transition.

Key Points

Insights from Germany's renewable shift on costs, grid limits, and emissions to guide Canada's balanced energy policy.

✅ Evidence: high power prices, delayed coal exit, limited grid buildout

✅ Land, materials, and wildlife impacts challenge wind and solar scale-up

✅ Diversification: hydro, nuclear, gas, and storage balance reliability

News that Greta Thunberg is visiting Alberta should be welcomed by all Canadians.

The teenaged Swedish environmentalist has focused global attention on the climate change debate like never before. So as she tours our province, where selling renewable energy could be Alberta's next big thing, what better time for a reality check than to look at a country that is furthest ahead in already adapting steps that Greta is advocating.

That country is Germany. And it’s not a pretty sight.

Germany embraced the shift toward renewable energy before anyone else, and did so with gusto. The result?

Germany’s largest newsmagazine Der Spiegel published an article on May 3 of this year entitled “A Botched Job in Germany.” The cover showed broken wind turbines and half-finished transition towers against a dark silhouette of Berlin.

Germany’s renewable energy transition, Energiewende, is a bust. After spending and committing a total of US$580 billion to it from 2000 to 2025.

Why is that? Because it’s been a nightmare of foolish dreams based on hope rather than fact, resulting in stalled projects and dreadfully poor returns.

Last year Germany admitted it had to delay its phase-out of coal and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitment. Only eight per cent of the transmission lines needed to support this new approach to powering Germany have been built.

Opposition to renewables is growing due to electricity prices rising to the point they are now among the highest in the world. Wind energy projects in Germany are now facing the same opposition that pipelines are here in Canada. 

Opposition to renewables in Germany, reports Forbes, is coming from people who live in rural or suburban areas, in opposition to the “urbane, cosmopolitan elites who fetishize their solar roofs and Teslas as a sign of virtue.” Sound familiar?

So, if renewables cannot successfully power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, who can do it better?

The biggest problem with using wind and solar power on a large scale is that the physics just don’t work. They need too much land and equipment to produce sufficient amounts of electricity.

Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear power plants to produce the same amount of electricity. Wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells.

The amount of metal required to build these sites is enormous, requiring new mines. Wind farms are killing hundreds of endangered birds.

No amount of marketing or spin can change the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables.

But, wait. Isn’t Norway, Greta’s neighbour, dumping its energy investments and moving into alternative energy like wind farms in a big way?

No, not really. Fact is only 0.8 per cent of Norway’s power comes from wind turbines. The country is blessed with a lot of hydroelectric power, but that’s a historical strength owing to the country’s geography, nothing new.

And yet we’re being told the US$1-trillion Oslo-based Government Pension Fund Global is moving out of the energy sector to instead invest in wind, solar and other alternative energy technologies. According to 350.org activist Nicolo Wojewoda this is “yet another nail in the coffin of the coal, oil, and gas industry.”

Well, no.

Norway’s pension fund is indeed investing in new energy forms, but not while pulling out of traditional investments in oil and gas. Rather, as any prudent fund manager will, they are diversifying by making modest investments in emerging industries such as Alberta's renewable energy surge that will likely pay off down the road while maintaining existing investments, spreading their investments around to reduce risk. Unfortunately for climate alarmists, the reality is far more nuanced and not nearly as explosive as they’d like us to think.

Yet, that’s enough for them to spin this tale to argue Canada should exit oil and gas investment and put all of our money into wind and solar, even as Canada remains a solar power laggard according to experts.

That is not to say renewable energy projects like wind and solar don’t have a place. They do, and we must continue to innovate and research lower-polluting ways to power our societies on the path to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 in Canada.

But like it actually is in Norway, investment in renewables should supplement — not replace — fossil fuel energy systems if we aim for zero-emission electricity in Canada by 2035 without undermining reliability. We need both.

And that’s the message that Greta should hear when she arrives in Canada.

Rick Peterson is the Edmonton-based founder and Beth Bailey is a Calgary-based supporter of Suits and Boots, a national not-for-profit group of investment industry professionals that supports resource sector workers and their families.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Germany nuclear phase-out underscores a high-stakes energy transition, trading reactors for renewables, LNG imports, and grid resilience to secure supply, cut emissions, and navigate climate policy, public opinion shifts, and post-Ukraine supply shocks.

Key Points

Germany's nuclear phase-out retires reactors, shifting to renewables, LNG, and grid upgrades for low-carbon power.

✅ Last three reactors: Neckarwestheim, Isar 2, and Emsland closed

✅ Supply secured via LNG imports, renewables, and grid flexibility

✅ Policy accelerated post-Fukushima; debate renewed after Ukraine war

The German government is phasing out nuclear power despite the energy crisis. The country is pulling the plug on its last three reactors, betting it will succeed in its green transition without nuclear power.

On the banks of the Neckar River, not far from Stuttgart in south Germany, the white steam escaping from the nuclear power plant in Baden-Württemberg will soon be a memory.

The same applies further east for the Bavarian Isar 2 complex and the Emsland complex, at the other end of the country, not far from the Dutch border.

While many Western countries depend on nuclear power, Europe's largest economy is turning the page, even if a possible resurgence of nuclear energy is debated until the end.

Germany is implementing the decision to phase out nuclear power taken in 2002 and accelerated by Angela Merkel in 2011, after the Fukushima disaster.

Fukushima showed that "even in a high-tech country like Japan, the risks associated with nuclear energy cannot be controlled 100 per cent", the former chancellor justified at the time.

The announcement convinced public opinion in a country where the powerful anti-nuclear movement was initially fuelled by fears of a Cold War conflict, and then by accidents such as Chernobyl.

The invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 brought everything into question. Deprived of Russian gas, the flow of which was essentially interrupted by Moscow, Germany found itself exposed to the worst possible scenarios, from the risk of its factories being shut down to the risk of being without heating in the middle of winter.

With just a few months to go before the initial deadline for closing the last three reactors on 31 December, the tide of public opinion began to turn, and talk of a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout grew louder. 

"With high energy prices and the burning issue of climate change, there were of course calls to extend the plants," says Jochen Winkler, mayor of Neckarwestheim, where the plant of the same name is in its final days.

Olaf Scholz's government, which the Green Party - the most hostile to nuclear power - is part of, finally decided to extend the operation of the reactors to secure the supply until 15 April.

"There might have been a new discussion if the winter had been more difficult if there had been power cuts and gas shortages nationwide. But we have had a winter without too many problems," thanks to the massive import of liquefied natural gas, notes Mr Winkler.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Coinmint Plattsburgh Dispute spotlights cryptocurrency mining, hydropower electricity rates, a $1M security deposit, Public Service Commission rulings, municipal utility policies, and seasonal migration to Massena data centers as Bitcoin price volatility pressures operations.

Key Points

Legal and energy-cost dispute over crypto mining, a $1,019,503 deposit, and operations in Plattsburgh and Massena.

✅ PSC allows higher rates and requires large security deposits.

✅ Winter electricity spikes drove a $1M deposit calculation.

✅ Coinmint shifted capacity to Massena data centers.

A few years ago, there was a lot of buzz about the North Country becoming the next Silicon Valley of cryptocurrency, even as Maine debated a 145-mile line that could reshape regional power flows. One of the companies to flock here was Coinmint. The cryptomining company set up shop in Plattsburgh in 2017 and declared its intentions to be a good citizen.

Today, Coinmint is fighting a legal battle to avoid paying the city’s electric utility more than $1 million owed for a security deposit. In addition to that dispute, a local property manager says the firm was evicted from one of its Plattsburgh locations.

Companies like Coinmint chose to come to the North Country because of the relatively low electricity prices here, thanks in large part to the hydropower dam on the St. Lawrence River in Massena, and regionally, projects such as the disputed electricity corridor have drawn attention to transmission costs and access. Coinmint operates its North Country Data Center facilities in Plattsburgh and Massena. In both locations, racks of computer servers perform complex calculations to generate cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin.

When cryptomining began to take off in Plattsburgh, the cost of one bitcoin was skyrocketing. That brought hype around the possibility of big business and job creation in the North Country. But cryptomininers like Coinmint were using massive amounts of energy in the winter of 2017-2018, and that season, electric bills of everyday Plattsburgh residents spiked.

Many cryptomining firms operate in a state of flux, beholden to the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, even as the end to the 'war on coal' declaration did little to change utilities' choices. When the price of one bitcoin hit $20,000 in 2017, it fell by 30% just days later. That’s one reason why the price of electricity is so critical for companies like Coinmint to turn a profit. 

Plattsburgh puts the brakes on “cryptocurrency mining”
In early 2018, Plattsburgh passed a moratorium on cryptocurrency mining operations, after residents complained of higher-than-usual electric bills.

“Your electric bill’s $100, then it’s at $130. Why? It’s because these guys that are mining the bitcoins are riding into town, taking advantage of a situation,” said resident Andrew Golt during a 2018 public hearing.

Coinmint aimed to assuage the worries of residents and other businesses. “At the end of the day we want to be a good citizen in whatever communities we’re in,” Coinmint spokesman Kyle Carlton told NCPR at that 2018 meeting.

“We’re open to working with those communities to figure out whatever solutions are going to work.”

The ban was lifted in Feb. 2019. However, since it didn’t apply to companies that were already mining cryptocurrency in Plattsburgh, Coinmint has operated in the city all along.

Coinmint challenges attempt to protect ratepayers
New rules passed by the New York Public Service Commission in March 2018 allow municipal power authorities including Plattsburgh’s to charge big energy users such as Coinmint higher electricity rates, amid customer backlash in other utility deals. The new rules also require them to put down a security deposit to ensure their bills get paid.

But Coinmint disputes that deposit charge. The company has been embroiled in a legal fight for nearly a year against Plattsburgh Municipal Lighting Department (PMLD) in an attempt to avoid paying the electric utility’s security deposit bill of $1,019,503. That bill is based on an estimate of what would cover two months of electricity use if a company were to leave town without paying its electric bills.

Coinmint would not discuss the dispute on the record with NCPR. Legal documents show the firm argues the deposit charge is inflated, based on a flawed calculation resulting in a charge hundreds of thousands of dollars higher than what it should be.

“Essentially they’re arguing that they should only have to put up some average of their monthly bills without accounting for the fact that winter bills are significantly higher than the average,” said Ken Podolny, an attorney representing the Plattsburgh utility.

The company took legal action in February 2019 against PMLD in the hopes New York’s energy regulator, the Public Service Commission, would agree with Coinmint that the deposit charge was too high. An informal commission hearing officer disagreed, and ruled in October the charge was calculated correctly.

Coinmint appealed the ruling in November and a hearing on the appeal could come as soon as February.

Less than a week after Coinmint lost its initial challenge of the deposit charge, the company made a splashy announcement trumpeting its plans to “migrate its Plattsburgh, New York infrastructure to its Massena, New York location for the 2019-2020 winter season.”

The announcement made no mention of the appeal or the recent ruling against Coinmint. The company attributed its new plan to “exceptionally-high” electricity rates in Plattsburgh, as hydropower transmission projects elsewhere in New England faced their own controversies. 

"We recognize some in the Plattsburgh community have blamed our operation for pushing rates higher for everyone so, while we disagree with that assessment, we hope this seasonal migration will have a positive impact on rates for all our neighbors,” said Coinmint cofounder Prieur Leary in the press statement.

“In the event that doesn't happen, we trust the community will look for the real answers for these high costs." Prieur Leary has since been removed from the corporate team page on the company’s website.

The company still operates in Plattsburgh at one of its locations in the city. As for staff, while at least two Coinmint employees have moved from Plattsburgh to Massena, where the company operates a data center inside a former Alcoa aluminum plant, it is unclear how many people in total have made the move.

Coinmint left its second Plattsburgh location in 2019. The company would not discuss that move on the record, yet the circumstances of the departure are murky.

The local property manager of the industrial park site told NCPR, “I have no comment on our evicted tenant Coinmint.” The property owner, California’s Karex Property Management Services, also would not comment regarding the situation, noting that “all staff have been told to not discuss anything regarding our past tenant Coinmint.”

Today, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are worth a fraction of what they were back in 2017 when Coinmint came to the North Country, and now, amid a debate over Bitcoin's electricity use shaping market sentiment, the future of the entire industry here remains uncertain.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EU Renewable Energy Shift is cutting gas dependence as wind and solar expand, reshaping Europe's power mix, curbing emissions, and pressuring coal use amid a supply crisis and rising natural gas prices.

Key Points

An EU trend where wind and solar growth reduce gas reliance, curb coal, and lower power-sector emissions.

✅ Wind and solar displace gas in EU power mix

✅ Coal use rises as gas prices surge

✅ Emissions fall, but not fast enough for 1.5 C target

The European Union’s renewable energy sources are helping reduce its dependence on natural gas, under the current European electricity pricing framework, that’s still costing the region dearly.

Renewables growth has helped reduce the EU’s dependence on gas, as wind and solar outpaced gas across the bloc last year, which has soared in price since the middle of last year as the region grapples with a supply crisis that’s dealt blows to industries as well as ordinary consumers’ pockets. More than half of new renewable generation since 2019 has replaced gas power, according to a study by London-based climate think tank Ember, with the rest replacing mainly nuclear and coal sources.

“These are moments and paradigm shifts when governments and businesses start taking this much more seriously,” said Charles Moore, the lead author on the study, amid Covid-19 responses accelerating the transition across Europe. “The alternatives are available, they are cheaper, and they are likely to get even cheaper and more competitive. Renewables are now an opportunity, not a cost.”

The high price of gas relative to coal has meant utilities are leaning more on coal as a back-up for renewable generation, as stunted hydro and nuclear output has constrained low-carbon alternatives in parts of Europe, which risks the trajectory of Europe’s phase-out of the dirtiest fossil fuel. Last year, the EU’s coal use jumped disproportionately high relative to the rise in power generation as high gas prices boosted the relative profitability of burning coal instead.

Europe Coal Use Jumps as Costly Gas Turns Firms to Dirty Fuel
EU power generation from renewables reached a record high in 2021 of 547 terawatt-hours last year, accounting for an 11% increase compared to two years before, according to Ember’s Europe Electricity Review. It’s more than doubled in a decade, representing a 157% increase since 2011. 

Gas use declined last year for the second year in a row, as Europe explores storing electricity in gas pipelines to leverage existing infrastructure, reaching a level 8.1% lower than 2019. By contrast, coal use fell just 3.3% in the same period. Put simply, wind and solar did a great job of replacing coal during 2011-2019 but since then renewables have mostly been nudging out gas-fired power stations.

Ember’s Moore warned that the slowing phase-out of coal might require legislation to accelerate. The International Energy Agency recommends OECD countries cease using coal by the end of the decade to ensure alignment with the Paris Agreement target of keeping the world’s temperature increase below 1.5 Celsius, with renewables poised to eclipse coal globally by the mid-2020s lending momentum. 

“Europe can accelerate the phasing out of coal by building more renewable energy and faster,” said Felicia Aminoff,  an energy-transition analyst at BloombergNEF. “Wind and solar have no fuel costs, so as soon as you have made the initial investments to build wind and solar capacity it will start replacing generation that uses any kind of fuel, whether it is coal or gas.”

Overall, EU power sector emissions fell at less than half the rate required to hit that target, Ember’s report said. Spain produced the largest emissions reduction in the last two years, with renewables adding about 25 TWh and gas falling 15 TWh, and in Germany renewables topped coal and nuclear for the first time to support the shift. In contrast, heavy use of coal dragged down the bloc’s climate progress in Poland, where coal use rose about 8 TWh and renewables gained only 4 TWh.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News