Huge solar panel manufacturing plant coming to California

Australia Energy Policy Debate highlights IPCC warnings, Paris Agreement goals, coal phase-out, emissions reduction, renewables, gas, pumped hydro, storage, reliability, and investment certainty amid NEG uncertainty and federal-state tensions over targets.

Key Points

Debate over coal, emissions targets, and grid reliability, guided by IPCC science, Paris goals, and market reforms.

✅ IPCC urges rapid cuts and coal phase-out by 2050

✅ NEG's emissions pillar stalled; reliability obligation alive

✅ States, market operators push investment certainty and storage

The United Nation’s climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on Monday said radical emissions reduction across the world’s economies, including a phase-out of coal by 2050, was required to avoid the most devastating climate change impacts.

The Morrison government dismissed the findings. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg insisted this week that “coal is an important part of the energy mix”.

“If we were to take coal out of the system the lights would go out on the east coast of Australia overnight. It provides more than 60 per cent of our power," he said.

Ms Zibelman, whose organisation operates the nation’s largest gas and electricity markets, said if Australia was to make an orderly transition to low-emissions electricity generation, aligning with the sustainable electric planet vision, “then certainly we would keep the lights on”.

Ms Zibelman said coal assets should be maintained “as long as they are economically viable and we should have a plan to replace them with resources that are lowest cost”.

Those options comprised gas, renewables, pumped hydro and other energy storage, she told ABC radio, as New Zealand weighs electrification to replace fossil fuels.

Under the Paris treaty the government has pledged to lower emissions by 26 per cent by 2030, based on 2005 levels, even as national emissions rose 2% recently according to industry reports.

Labor would increase the goal to a 45 per cent cut - a policy Prime Minister Scott Morrison said last month would " shut down every coal-fired power station in the country and ... increase people’s power bill by about $1,400 on average for every single household”.

The federal government has scrapped its proposed National Energy Guarantee, which would have cut emissions in the electricity sector, but the reliability component of the plan may continue in some form.

The policy was being developed by the Energy Security Board. The group’s chairwoman Kerry Schott has expressed anger at its demise but on Thursday revealed the board was still working on the policy because “nobody told us to stop”.

Speaking at the Melbourne Institute's Outlook conference, she urged the government to revive the emissions reduction component of the plan to provide investment certainty, noting the IEA net-zero report on Canada shows electricity demand rises in decarbonisation.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor, an energy consultant before entering Parliament, on Thursday said the electricity sector would reduce emissions in line with the Paris deal without a mandated target.

Mr Taylor said only a “very brave state” would not support the policy’s reliability obligation.

The federal government has called a COAG energy council meeting for October 26 in Sydney to discuss electricity reliability.

It is understood Mr Taylor has not contacted Victoria, Queensland or the ACT since taking the portfolio, despite needing unanimous support from the states to progress the issue.

The Victorian government goes into caretaker mode on October 30 ahead of that state's election.

Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio said the federal government was “a rabble when it comes to energy policy, and we won’t be signing anything until after the election".

Speaking at the Melbourne Institute conference, prominent business leaders on Thursday bemoaned a lack of political leadership on energy policy and climate change, saying the only way forward appeared to be for companies to take action themselves, with some pointing to Canada's race to net-zero as a case study in the role of renewables.

Jayne Hrdlicka, chief executive of ASX-listed dairy and infant-formula company a2 Milk, said "we all have an obligation to do the very best job we can in managing our carbon footprint".

"We just need to get on doing what we can .. and then hope that policy will catch up. But we can’t wait," she said.

Ms Hrdlicka said the recent federal political turmoil had been frustrating "because if you invest in building relationships as most of us do in Canberra and then overnight they are all changed, you’re starting from scratch".

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Teachers SSEN Transmission Investment advances UK renewable energy, with a 25% minority stake in SSE plc's electricity transmission network, backing offshore wind, grid expansion, and Net Zero 2050 goals across Scotland and UK.

Key Points

A 25% stake by Ontario Teachers in SSE's SSEN Transmission to fund UK grid upgrades and accelerate renewables.

✅ £1,465m cash for 25% minority stake in SSEN Transmission

✅ Supports offshore wind, grid expansion, and Net Zero targets

✅ Partnering SSE plc to deliver clean, affordable power in the UK

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘Ontario Teachers’) has reached an agreement with Scotland-based energy provider SSE plc (‘SSE’) to acquire a 25% minority stake in its electricity transmission network business, SSEN Transmission, to provide clean, affordable renewable energy to millions of homes and businesses across the UK, reflecting how clean-energy generation powers both the economy and the environment.

The transaction is based on an effective economic date of 31 March 2022, and total cash proceeds of £1,465m for the 25% stake are expected at completion. The transaction is expected to complete shortly.

Measures such as Ontario's 2021 electricity rate reductions have aimed to ease costs for businesses, informing broader discussions on affordability.

SSEN Transmission, which operates under its licenced entity, Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc, transports electricity generated from renewable resources – including onshore and offshore wind and hydro – from the north of Scotland across more than a quarter of the UK land mass amid scrutiny of UK electricity and gas networks profits under the regulatory regime. The investment by Ontario Teachers’ will help support the UK Government’s Net Zero 2050 targets, including the delivery of 50GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030.

Charles Thomazi, Senior Managing Director, Head of EMEA Infrastructure & Natural Resources, from Ontario Teachers’ said, noting that in Canada decisions like the OEB decision on Hydro One's T&D rates guide utility planning:

“SSEN Transmission is one of Europe’s fastest growing transmission networks. Its network stretches across some of the most challenging terrain in Scotland – from the North Sea and across the Highlands – to deliver safe, reliable, renewable energy to demand centres across the UK.

We’re delighted to partner again with SSE and are committed to supporting the growth of its network and the vital role it plays in the UK’s green energy revolution.”

Investor views on regulated utilities can diverge, as illustrated by analyses of Hydro One's investment outlook that weigh uncertainties and risk factors.

Rob McDonald, Managing Director of SSEN Transmission, said:

“With the north of Scotland home to the UK’s greatest resources of renewable electricity we have a critical role to play in helping deliver the UK and Scottish Governments net zero commitments.  Our investments will also be key to securing the UK’s future energy independence through enabling the deployment of homegrown, affordable, low carbon power.

“With significant growth forecast in transmission, bringing in Ontario Teachers’ as a minority stake partner will help fund our ambitious investment plans as we continue to deliver a network for net zero emissions across the north of Scotland.” 

Ontario Teachers’ Infrastructure & Natural Resources group invests in electricity infrastructure worldwide to accelerate the energy transition with current investments including Caruna, Finland’s largest electricity distributor, Evoltz, a leading electricity transmission platform in Brazil, and Spark Infrastructure, which invests in essential energy infrastructure in Australia to serve over 5 million homes and businesses.

In Ontario, distribution consolidation has included the sale of Peterborough Distribution to Hydro One for $105 million, illustrating ongoing sector realignment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business 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

AI-Powered Utility Customer Experience enables transparency, real-time pricing, smart thermostats, demand response, and billing optimization, helping utilities integrate distributed energy resources, battery storage, and microgrids while boosting customer satisfaction and reducing costs.

Key Points

An approach where utilities use AI and real-time data to personalize service, optimize billing, and cut energy costs.

✅ Real-time pricing aligns retail and wholesale market signals

✅ Device control via smart thermostats and home energy management

✅ Analytics reveal appliance-level usage and personalized savings

The latest electric utility customer satisfaction survey results from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Energy Utilities report reveal that nearly every investor-owned utility saw customer satisfaction go down from 2018 to 2019. Residential customers are sending a clear message in the report: They want more transparency and control over energy usage, billing and ways to reduce costs.

With both customer satisfaction and utility revenues on the decline, utilities are facing daunting challenges to their traditional business models amid flat electricity demand across many markets today. That said, it is the utilities that see these changing times as an opportunity to evolve that will become the energy leaders of tomorrow, where the customer relationship is no longer defined by sales volume but instead by a utility company's ability to optimize service and deliver meaningful customer solutions.

We have seen how the proliferation of centralized and distributed renewables on the grid has already dramatically changed the cost profile of traditional generation and variability of wholesale energy prices. This signals the real cost drivers in the future will come from optimizing energy service with things like batteries, microgrids and peer-to-peer trading networks. In the foreseeable future, flat electricity rates may be the norm, or electricity might even become entirely free as services become the primary source of utility revenue.

The key to this future is technological innovation that allows utilities to better understand a customer’s unique needs and priorities and then deliver personalized, well-timed solutions that make customers feel valued and appreciated as their utility helps them save and alleviates their greatest pain points.

I predict utilities that adopt new technologies focused on customer experience, aligned with key utility trends shaping the sector, and deliver continual service improvements and optimization will earn the most satisfied, most loyal customers.

To illustrate this, look at how fixed pricing today is applied for most residential customers. Unless you live in one of the states with deregulated utilities where most customers are free to choose a service provider in a competitive marketplace, as consumers in power markets increasingly reshape offerings, fixed-rate tariffs or time-of-use tariffs might be the only rate structures you have ever known, though new utility rate designs are being tested nationwide today. These tariffs are often market distortions, bearing little relation to the real-time price that the utility pays on the wholesale market.

It can be easy enough to compare the rate you pay as a consumer and the market rate that utilities pay. The California ISO has a public dashboard -- as do other grid operators -- that shows the real-time marginal cost of energy. On a recent Friday, for example, a buyer in San Francisco could go to the real-time market and procure electricity at a rate of around 9.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), yet a residential customer can pay the utility PG&E between 22 cents and 49 cents per kWh amid major changes to electric bills being debated, depending on usage.

The problem is that utility customers do not usually see this data or know how to interpret it in a way that helps add value to their service or drive down the cost.

This is a scenario ripe for innovation. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are beginning to be applied to give customers the transparency and control over the energy they desire, and a new type of utility is emerging using real-time pricing signals from wholesale markets to give households hassle-free energy savings. Evolve Energy in Texas is developing a utility service model, even as Texas utilities revisit smart home network strategies, that delivers electricity to consumers at real-time market prices and connects to smart thermostats and other connected devices in the home for simple monitoring and control -- all managed via an intuitive consumer app.

My company, Bidgely, partners with utilities and energy retailers all over the world to apply artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms to customer data in order to bring transparency to their electricity bills, showing exactly where the customers’ money is going down to the appliance and offering personalized, actionable advice on how to save.

Another example is from energy management company Keewi. Its wireless outlet adaptors are revealing real-time energy usage information to Texas A&M dorm residents as well as providing students the ability to conserve energy through controlling items in their rooms from their smartphones.

These are but a few examples of innovations among many in play that answer the consumer demand for increased transparency and control over energy usage.

Electric service providers will be closely watching how consumers respond to AI-driven innovation, including providers in traditionally regulated markets that are exploring equitable regulation approaches now, to stay aligned with policy and customer expectations. While regulated utilities have no reason to fear that their customers might sign up with a competitor, they understand that the revenues from electricity sales are going down and the deployment of distributed energy resources is going up. Both trends were reflected in a March report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (via ThinkProgress) that claimed unsubsidized storage projects co-located with solar or wind are starting to compete with coal and gas for dispatchable power. Change is coming to regulated markets, and some of that change can be attributed to customer dissatisfaction with utility service.

Like so many industries before, the utility-customer relationship is on track to become less about measuring unit sales and more about driving revenue through services and delivering the best customer value. Loyal customers are most likely to listen and follow through on the utility’s advice and to trust the utility for a wide range of energy-related products and services. Utilities that make customer experience the highest priority today will emerge tomorrow as the leaders of a new energy service era.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alliant Energy Net-Zero Carbon Plan outlines carbon-neutral electricity by 2050, coal retirements by 2040, major solar and wind additions, gas transition, battery storage, hydrogen, and carbon credits to reduce emissions and lower customer costs.

Key Points

Alliant Energy's strategy to reach carbon-neutral power by 2050 via coal phaseout, renewables, storage, and offsets.

✅ Targets net-zero electricity by 2050

✅ Retires all coal by 2040; expands solar and wind

✅ Uses storage, hydrogen, and offsets to bridge gaps

Alliant Energy has joined a small but growing group of utilities aiming for carbon-neutral electricity by 2050.

In a report released Wednesday, the Madison-based company announced a goal of “net-zero carbon dioxide emissions” from its electricity generation along with plans to eliminate all coal-powered generation by 2040, a decade earlier than the company’s previous target.

Alliant, which is pursuing plans that would make it the largest solar energy generator in Wisconsin, said it is on track to cut its 2005 carbon emissions in half by 2030.

Both goals are in line with targets an international group of scientists warn is necessary to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. But reducing greenhouse gasses was not the primary motivation, said executive vice president and general counsel Jim Gallegos.

“The primary driver is focused on our customers and communities and setting them up … to be competitive,” Gallegos said. “We do think renewables are going to do it better than fossil fuels.”

Alliant has told regulators it can save customers up to $6.5 billion over the next 35 years by adding more than 1,600 megawatts of renewable generation, closing one of its two remaining Wisconsin coal plants and taking other undisclosed actions.

In a statement, Alliant chairman and CEO John Larsen said the goal is part of broader corporate and social responsibility efforts “guided by our strategy and designed to deliver on our purpose — to serve customers and build stronger communities.”

Coal out; gas remains
The goal applies only to Alliant’s electricity generation — the company has no plans to stop distributing natural gas for heating — and is “net-zero,” meaning the company could use some form of carbon capture or purchase carbon credits to offset continuing emissions.

The plan relies heavily on renewable generation — seen in regions embracing clean power across North America — including the addition of up to 1,000 megawatts of new Wisconsin solar plants by the end of 2023 and 1,000 megawatts of Iowa wind generation added over the past four years — as well as natural gas generators to replace its aging coal fleet.

But Jeff Hanson, Alliant’s director of sustainability, said eliminating or offsetting all carbon emissions will require new tools, such as battery storage or possibly carbon-free fuels such as hydrogen, and awareness of the Three Mile Island debate over the role of nuclear power in the mix.

“Getting to the 2040 goals, that’s all based on the technologies of today,” Hanson said. “Can we get to net zero today? The challenge would be a pretty high bar to clear.”

Gallegos said the plan does not call for the construction of more large-scale natural gas generators like the recently completed $700 million West Riverside Energy Center in Beloit, though natural gas will remain a key piece of Alliant’s generation portfolio.

Alliant announced plans in May to close its 400-megawatt Edgewater plant in Sheboygan by the end of 2022, echoing how Alberta is retiring coal by 2023 as markets shift, but has not provided a date for the shutdown of the jointly owned 1,100-megawatt Columbia Energy Center near Portage, which received about $1 billion worth of pollution-control upgrades in the past decade.

Alliant’s Iowa subsidiary plans to convert its 52-year-old, 200-megawatt Burlington plant to natural gas by the end of next year and a pair of small coal-fired generators in Linn County by 2025. That leaves the 250-megawatt plant in Lansing, which is now 43 years old, and the 734-megawatt Ottumwa plant as the remaining coal-fired generators, even as others keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely elsewhere.

Earlier this year, the utility asked regulators to approve a roughly $900 million investment in six solar farms across the state with a total capacity of 675 megawatts, similar to plans in Ontario to seek new wind and solar to address supply needs. The company plans to apply next year for permission to add up to 325 additional megawatts.

Alliant said the carbon-neutral plan, which entails closing Edgewater along with other undisclosed actions, would save customers between $2 billion and $6.5 billion through 2055 compared to the status quo.

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the consumer advocacy group wants to ensure that ratepayers aren’t forced to continue paying for coal plants that are no longer needed while also paying for new energy sources and would like to see a bigger role for energy efficiency and more transparency about the utilities’ pathways to decarbonization.

‘They could do better’
Environmental groups said the announcement is a step in the right direction, though they say utilities need to do even more to protect the environment and consumers.

Amid competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy and pressure from environmentally conscious investors, U.S. utilities have been closing coal plants at a record pace in recent years, as industry CEOs say a coal comeback is unlikely in the U.S., a trend that is expected to continue through the next decade.

“This is not industry leadership when we’re talking about emission reductions,” said Elizabeth Katt Reinders, regional campaign director for the Sierra Club, which has called on Alliant to retire the Columbia plant by 2026.

Closing Edgewater and Columbia would get Alliant nearly halfway to its emissions goals while saving customers more than $250 million over the next decade, according to a Sierra Club study released earlier this year.

“Retiring Edgewater was a really good decision. Investing in 1,000 megawatts of new solar is game-changing for Wisconsin,” Katt Reinders said. “In the same breath we can say this emissions reduction goal is unambitious. Our analysis has shown they can do far more far sooner.”

Scott Blankman, a former Alliant executive who now works as director of energy and air programs for Clean Wisconsin, said Alliant should not run the Columbia plant for another 20 years.

“If they’re saying they’re looking to get out of coal by 2040 in Wisconsin I’d be very disappointed,” Blankman said. “I do think they could do better.”

Alliant is the 15th U.S. investor-owned utility to set a net-zero target, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, joining Madison Gas and Electric, which announced a similar goal last year. Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, which serves customers in western Wisconsin, was the first large investor-owned utility to set such a target, as state utilities report declining returns in coal operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.

Key Points

A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.

✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear

✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits

✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations

A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.

Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.

Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.

Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.

The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.

Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.

The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.

MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.

Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.

The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News