Two towns phasing out meter readers

Global Energy Investment Decline risks future oil and electricity supply, says the IEA, as spending on upstream, coal plants, and grids falls while renewables, storage, and flexible generation lag in the energy transition.

Key Points

Multi-year cuts to oil, power, and grid spending that increase risks of future supply shortages and market tightness.

✅ IEA warns underinvestment risks oil supply squeeze

✅ China and India slow coal plant additions; renewables rise

✅ Batteries aid flexibility but cannot replace seasonal storage

An almost 20 per cent fall in global energy investment over the past three years could lead to oil and electricity shortages, as surging electricity demand persists, and there are concerns about whether current business models will encourage sufficient levels of spending in the future, according a new report.

The International Energy Agency’s second annual IEA benchmark analysis of energy investment found that while the world spent $US1.7 trillion ($2.2 trillion) on fossil-fuel exploration, new power plants and upgrades to electricity grids last year, with electricity investment surpassing oil and gas even as global energy investment was down 12 per cent from a year earlier and 17 per cent lower than 2014.

While the IEA said continued oversupply of oil and electricity globally would prevent any imminent shock, falling investment “points to a risk of market tightness and undercapacity at some point down the line’’.

The low crude oil price drove a 44 per cent drop in oil and gas investment between 2014 and 2016. It fell 26 per cent last year. It was due to falls in upstream activity and a slowdown in the sanctioning of conventional oilfields to the lowest level in more than 70 years.

“Given the depletion of existing fields, the pace of investment in conventional fields will need to rise to avoid a supply squeeze, even on optimistic assumptions about technology and the impact of climate policies on oil demand,’’ the IEA warned in its report released yesterday evening. “The energy transition has barely begun in several key sectors, such as transport and industry, which will continue to rely heavily on oil, gas and coal for the foreseeable future.’’

The fall in global energy spending also reflected declining investment in power generation, particularly from coal plants.

While 21 per cent of global ­energy investment was made by China in 2016, the world’s fastest growing economy had a 25 per cent decline in the commissioning of new coal-fired power plants, due largely to air pollution issues and investment in renewables.

Investment in new coal-fired plants also fell in India.

“India and China have slammed the brakes on coal-fired generation. That is the big change we have seen globally,’’ said ­Bruce Mountain a director at CME Australia.

“What it confirms is the ­pressures and the changes we are seeing in Australia, the restructuring of our energy supply, is just part of a global trend. We are facing the pressures more sharply in Australia because our power prices are very high. But that same shift in energy source in Australia are being mirrored internationally.’’ The IEA — a Paris-based adviser to the OECD on energy policy — also highlighted Australia’s reduced power reserves in its report and called for regulatory change to encourage greater use of renewables.

“Australia has one of the highest proportions of households with PV systems on their roof of any country in the world, and its ­electricity use in its National ­Electricity Market is spread out over a huge and weakly connected network,’’ the report said.

“It appears that a series of accompanying investments and regulatory changes are needed, including a plan to avoid supply threats, to use Australia’s abundant wind and solar potential: changing system operation methods and reliability procedures as well as investment into network capacity, flexible generation and storage.’’ The report found that in Australia there had been an increase in grid-scale installations mostly associated with large-scale solar PV plants.

Last month the Turnbull ­government revealed it was prepared to back the construction of new coal-fired power stations to prevent further shortfalls in electricity supplies, while the PM ruled out taxpayer-funded plants and declared it was open to using “clean coal” technology to replace existing generators.

He also pledged “immediate” ­action to boost the supply of gas by forcing exporters to divert ­production into the domestic ­market.

Since then technology billionaire Elon Musk has promised to solve South Australia’s energy ­issues by building the world’s largest lithium-ion battery in the state.

But the IEA report said batteries were unlikely to become a “one size fits all” single solution to ­electricity security and flexibility provision.

“While batteries are well-suited to frequency control and shifting hourly load, they cannot provide seasonal storage or substitute the full range of technical services that conventional plants provide to stabilise the system,’’ the report said.

“In the absence of a major technological breakthrough, it is most likely that batteries will complement rather than substitute ­conventional means of providing system flexibility. While conventional plants continue to provide essential system services, their business model is increasingly being called into question in ­unbundled systems.’’

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Rooftop Solar Cost Shift examines PG&E rate hikes, net metering changes, and utility infrastructure spending impacts on low-income households, distributed generation, and clean energy adoption, potentially raising bills and undermining grid resilience.

Key Points

A claim that rooftop solar shifts fixed grid costs to others; critics cite PG&E rates, avoided costs, and impacts.

✅ PG&E rates outpace national average, underscoring cost drivers.

✅ Net metering cuts risk burdening low- and middle-income homes.

✅ Distributed generation avoids infrastructure spend and grid strain.

California is grappling with soaring electricity prices across the state, with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates more than double the national average and increasing at an average of 12.5% annually over the past six years. In response, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state energy agencies to identify ways to reduce power costs. However, recent policy shifts targeting rooftop solar users may exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it.

The "Cost Shift" Theory

A central justification for these pricing changes is the "cost shift" theory. This theory posits that homeowners with rooftop solar panels reduce their electricity consumption from the grid, thereby shifting the fixed costs of maintaining and operating the electrical grid onto non-solar customers. Proponents argue that this leads to higher rates for those without solar installations.

However, this theory is based on a flawed assumption: that PG&E owns 100% of the electricity generated by its customers and is entitled to full profits even for energy it does not deliver. In reality, rooftop solar users supply only about half of their energy needs and still pay for the rest. Moreover, their investments in solar infrastructure reduce grid strain and save ratepayers billions by avoiding costly infrastructure projects and reducing energy demand growth, aligning with efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid as well.

Impact on Low- and Middle-Income Households

The majority of rooftop solar users are low- and middle-income households. These individuals often invest in solar panels to lower their energy bills and reduce their carbon footprint. Policy changes that undermine the financial viability of rooftop solar disproportionately affect these communities, and efforts to overturn income-based charges add uncertainty about affordability and access.

For instance, Assembly Bill 942 proposes to retroactively alter contracts for millions of solar consumers, cutting the compensation they receive from providing energy to the grid, raising questions about major changes to your electric bill that could follow if their home is sold or transferred. This would force those with solar leases—predominantly lower-income individuals—to buy out their contracts when selling their homes, potentially incurring significant financial burdens.

The Real Drivers of Rising Energy Costs

While rooftop solar users are being blamed for rising electricity rates, calls for action have mounted as the true culprits lie elsewhere. Unchecked utility infrastructure spending has been a significant factor in escalating costs. For example, PG&E's rates have increased rapidly, yet the utility's spending on infrastructure projects has often been criticized for inefficiency and lack of accountability. Instead of targeting solar users, policymakers should scrutinize utility profit motives and infrastructure investments to identify areas where costs can be reduced without sacrificing service quality.

California's approach to addressing rising electricity costs by targeting rooftop solar users is misguided. The "cost shift" theory is based on flawed assumptions and overlooks the substantial benefits that rooftop solar provides to the grid and ratepayers. To achieve a sustainable and equitable energy future, the state must focus on controlling utility spending, promoting clean energy access for all, especially as it exports its energy policies across the West, and ensuring that policies support—not undermine—the adoption of renewable energy technologies.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC-Alberta Transmission Intertie enables clean hydro to balance wind and solar, expanding transmission capacity so Site C hydro can dispatch power, cut emissions, lower costs, and accelerate electrification across provincial grids under federal climate policy.

Key Points

A cross-provincial grid link using BC hydro to firm Alberta wind and solar, cutting emissions and costs.

✅ Balances variable renewables with dispatchable hydro from Site C.

✅ Enables power trade: peak exports, low-cost wind imports.

✅ Lowers decarbonization costs and supports electrification goals.

By Mark Jaccard

Lost in the news and noise of the federal government's newly announced $170-per-tonne carbon tax was a single, critical sentence in Canada's updated climate plan, one that signals a strategy that could serve as the cornerstone for a future free of greenhouse gas emissions.

"The government will work with provinces and territories to connect parts of Canada that have abundant clean hydroelectricity with parts that are currently more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation — including by advancing strategic intertie projects."

Why do we think this one sentence is so important? And what has it got to do with the controversial Site C project Site C electricity debate under construction in British Columbia?

The answer lies in the huge amount of electricity we'll need to generate in Canada to achieve our climate goals for 2030 and 2050. Even while we aggressively pursue energy efficiency, our electric cars, buses and perhaps trucks in Canada's net-zero race will need a huge amount of new electricity, as will our buildings and industries. 

Luckily, Canada is blessed with an electricity system that is the envy of the world — already over 80 per cent zero emission, the bulk being from flexible hydro-electricity, with a backbone of nuclear power largely in Ontario, a national electricity success and rapidly growing shares of cheap wind and solar. 

Provincial differences
Yet the story differs significantly from one province to another. While B.C.'s electricity is nearly emissions free, the opposite is true of its neighbour, Alberta, where more than 80 per cent still comes from fossil fuels. This, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years.

Now imagine if B.C. and Alberta were one province.

This might sound like the start of a bad joke, or a horror movie to some, but it's the crux of new research by a trio of energy economists who put a fine point on the value of such co-operation.

The study, by Brett Dolter, Kent Fellows and Nic Rivers, takes a detailed look at the economic case for completing Site C, BC Hydro's controversial large hydro project under construction, and makes three key conclusions.

First, they argue Site C should likely not have been started in the first place. Only a narrow set of assumptions can now justify its total cost. But what's done is done, and absent a time machine, the decision to complete the dam rests on go-forward costs.

On that note, their second conclusion is no more optimistic. Considering the cost to complete the project, even accounting for avoiding termination costs should it be cancelled, they find the economics of completing Site C over-budget status to be weak. If the New York Times had a Site C needle in the style of the newspaper's election visual, it would be "leaning cancel" at this point.

In Alberta, more than 80 per cent of the electricity still comes from fossil fuels, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years. (CBC)
But it is their third conclusion that stands out as worthy of attention. They argue there is a case for completing Site C if the following conditions are met:

B.C. and Alberta reduce their electricity sector emissions by more than 75 per cent (this really means Alberta, given B.C.'s already clean position); and

B.C. and Alberta expand their ability to move electricity between their respective provinces by building new transmission lines.

Let's deal with each of these in turn.

On Condition 1, we give an emphatic: YES! Reducing electricity emissions is an absolute must to meet climate pledges if Canada is to come even close to achieving its net-zero goals. As noted above, a clean electricity grid will be the cornerstone of a decarbonized economy as we generate a great deal more power to electrify everything from industrial processes to heating to transportation and more. 

Condition 2 is more challenging. Talk of increasing transmission connections across Canada, including Hydro-Québec's U.S. strategy has been ongoing for over 50 years, with little success to speak of. But this time might well be different. And the implications for a completed Site C, should the government go that route, are profound.

Wind and solar costs rapidly declining
Somewhat ironically, the case for Site C is made stronger by the rapidly declining costs of two of its apparent renewable competitors: wind and solar.

The cost of wind and solar generation has fallen by 70 per cent and 90 per cent, respectively, a dramatic decline in the past 10 years. No longer can these variable sources of power be derided as high cost; they are unequivocally the cheapest sources of raw energy in electricity systems today.

However, electricity system operators must deal with their "non-dispatchability," a seemingly complicated term that simply means they produce electricity only when the sun shines and the wind blows, which is not necessarily when electricity customers want their electricity delivered (dispatched) to them. And because of this characteristic, the value of dispatchable electricity sources, like a completed Site C, will grow as a complement to wind and solar. 

Thus, as Alberta's generation of cheap wind and solar grows, so too does the value of connecting it with the firm, dispatchable resources available in B.C.

Rather than displacing wind and solar, large hydro facilities with the ability to increase or decrease output on short notice can actually enable more investment in these renewable sources. Expanding the transmission connection, with Site C on one side of that line, becomes even more valuable.

Many in B.C. might read this and rightly ask themselves, why should we foot the bill for this costly project to help out Albertans? The answer is that it won't be charity — B.C. will get paid handsomely for the power it delivers in peak periods and will be able to import wind power at low prices from Alberta in other times. B.C. will benefit greatly from these gains of trade.

Turning to Alberta, why should Albertans support B.C. reaping these gains? The answer is two-fold.

First, Site C will actually enable more low-cost wind and solar to be built in Alberta due to hydro's ability to balance these non-dispatchable renewables. Jobs and economic opportunity will occur in Alberta from this renewable energy growth.

Second, while B.C. imports won't come cheap, they will be less costly than the decarbonization alternatives Alberta would need without B.C.'s flexible hydro, as the economists' study shows. This means lower overall costs to Alberta's power consumers.

A clear role for Ottawa
To be sure, there are challenges to increasing the connectedness of B.C. and Alberta's power systems, not least of which is BC Hydro being a regulated, government-owned monopoly while Alberta is a competitive market amongst private generators. Some significant accommodations in climate policy and grids will be needed to ensure both sides can compete and benefit from trade on an equal footing.

There is also the pesky matter of permitting and constructing thousands of kilometres of power lines. Getting linear energy infrastructure built in Canada has not exactly been our forte of late.

We are not naive to the significant challenges in such an approach, but it's not often that we see such a clear narrative for beneficial climate action that, when considered at the provincial level, is likely to be thwarted, but when considered more broadly can produce a big win.

It's the clearest example yet of a role for the federal government to bridge the gap, to facilitate the needed regulatory conversations, and, let's be frank, to bring money to the table to make the line happen. Neither provincial side is likely to do it on their own, nor, as history has shown, are they likely to do it together. 

For a government committed to reducing emissions, and with a justified emphasis on the electricity sector, the opportunity to expand the Alberta-B.C. transmission intertie, leveraging the flexibility of B.C.'s hydro with the abundance of wind and solar potential on the Prairies, offers a potential massive decarbonization win for Western Canada that is too good to ignore.

Mark Jaccard, a professor at Simon Fraser University, and Blake Shaffer, a professor at the University of Calgary

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Newfoundland and Labrador electricity rate hike examines a proposed 18.6% increase under the PUB's Rate Stabilization Plan, driven by oil prices at Holyrood, with Consumer Advocate concerns over rate shock and use of RSP balances.

Key Points

A proposed 18.6% July 2017 increase under the RSP, driven by oil prices, now under PUB review for potential mitigation.

✅ PUB flags potential rate shock from proposed adjustment

✅ RSP balances cited to offset increases without depleting fund

✅ Oil-fired Holyrood volatility drives fuel cost uncertainty

How much of a rate hike is reasonable for users of electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador?

That's a question before the Public Utilities Board (PUB) as it examines an application by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which could see consumers pay up to 18.6 per cent more as of July 1, reflecting regional pressures seen in Nova Scotia, where regulators approved a 14% rate hike earlier this year.

"The estimated rate increase for July 2017 is such a significant increase that it may be argued that it would cause rate shock," said the PUB, asking the company to revise its application.

NL Hydro said the price adjustment is part of what happens every year through the Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP), which is used to offset the ups and downs of oil prices.

"The cost of fuel is volatile and as long as we rely on oil-fired generation at Holyrood, customers will continue to be impacted by this electricity price uncertainty," said the company in a statement to CBC News.

It noted that customers received a break from RSP adjustments in 2015 and 2016, even as costs from the Muskrat Falls project begin to be reflected.

The PUB noted that under the rate stabilization plan, prices have gone up or down by about 10 per cent in the past.

The regulatory board said the impact of the latest request would be a 27.6 per cent hike to Newfoundland Power, with "an estimated average end customer impact of 18.6 per cent."

Hydro's estimates are based on an average price for oil of $81.40 per barrel from July 2017 to June 2018, according to the PUB.

'Unacceptable' burden: Consumer Advocate

"To burden ratepayers with an 18 per cent rate increase is unacceptable," said Consumer Advocate Dennis Browne, echoing pushback in Nova Scotia, where the premier urged regulators to reject a 14% hike at the time.

Browne is arguing that there is money in the RSP to reduce the proposed increase, including the possibility of a lump-sum bill credit for customers.

"These ratepayer balances — which, according to NL Power, totals $77.4 million — are not the property of Hydro," he wrote in a letter to the PUB.

"No utility has the right to squirrel away ratepayers' money to be used by that utility for some future purpose. The Board has jurisdiction over those balances," Browne said.

Browne also wants the RSP overhauled so that it can be applied to price fluctuations every quarter, as opposed to annually.

Hydro has expressed concern that depleting the rate stabilization fund would lead to other, more significant, rate increases in the future.

It said several alternatives to mitigate high rates have been provided to the PUB, which has final say, similar to how Manitoba Hydro scaled back a planned increase in the next year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Mexico Energy Reform Defeat underscores opposition unity as CFE-first rules, state regulators, and lithium nationalization falter amid USMCA concerns, investment risks, and clean energy transition impacts in Congress over power generation policy.

Key Points

The failed push to expand CFE control, flagged for USMCA risks, higher costs, regulator shifts, and slower clean energy transition.

✅ Bill to mandate 54% CFE generation and priority dispatch failed.

✅ Opposition cited USMCA breaches, higher prices, slower clean energy.

✅ Lithium nationalization to return via separate legislation.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's plan to increase state control of power generation was defeated in parliament on Sunday, as opposition parties united in the face of a bill they said would hurt investment and breach international obligations, concerns mirrored by rulings such as the Florida court on electricity monopolies that scrutinize market concentration.

His National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) and its allies fell nearly 60 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed in the 500-seat lower house of Congress, mustering just 275 votes after a raucous session that lasted more than 12 hours.

Seeking to roll back previous constitutional reforms that liberalized the electricity market, Lopez Obrador's proposed changes would have done away with a requirement that state-owned Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE) sell the cheapest electricity first, a move reminiscent of debates when energy groups warned on pricing changes under federal proposals, allowing it to sell its own electricity ahead of other power companies.

Under the bill, the CFE would also have been set to generate a minimum of 54% of the country's total electricity, and energy regulation would have been shifted from independent bodies to state regulators, paralleling concerns raised when a Calgary retailer opposed a market overhaul over regulatory impacts.

The contentious proposals faced much criticism from business groups and the United States, Mexico's top trade partner as well as other allies who argued it would violate the regional trade deal, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), even as the USA looks to Canada for green power to deepen cross-border energy ties.

Lopez Obrador had argued the bill would have protected consumers and made the country more energy independent, echoing how Texas weighs market reforms to avoid blackouts to bolster reliability, saying the legislation was vital to his plans to "transform" Mexico.

Although the odds were against his party, he came into the vote seeking to leverage his victory in last weekend's referendum on his leadership.

Speaking ahead of the vote, Jorge Alvarez Maynez, a lawmaker from the opposition Citizens' Movement party, said the proposals, if enacted, would damage Mexico, pointing to experiences like the Texas electricity market bailout after a severe winter storm as cautionary examples.

"There isn't a specialist, academic, environmentalist or activist with a smidgen of doubt - this bill would increase electricity prices, slow the transition to (clean) energy in our country and violate international agreements," he added.

Supporters of clean-energy goals noted that subnational shifts, such as the New Mexico 100% clean electricity bill can illustrate alternative pathways to reform.

The bill also contained a provision to nationalize lithium resources.

Lopez Obrador said this week that if the bill was defeated, he would send another bill to Congress on Monday aiming to have at least the lithium portion of the proposed legislation passed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News