More voltage flow westward considered

India Nuclear Generation Shortfall highlights missed five-year plan targets due to uranium fuel scarcity, commissioning delays at Kudankulam, PFBR slippage, and PHWR equipment bottlenecks under IAEA safeguards and domestic supply constraints.

Key Points

A gap between planned and actual nuclear output due to fuel shortages, reactor delays, and first-of-a-kind hurdles.

✅ Fuel scarcity pre-2009-10 constrained unsafeguarded reactors.

✅ Kudankulam delays from protests, litigation, and remobilisation.

✅ FOAK PHWR equipment bottlenecks and PFBR slippage.

A lack of available domestically produced nuclear fuel and delays in constructing and commissioning nuclear power plants, including first-of-a-kind plants and the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), meant that India failed to meet its nuclear generation targets under the governmental plans over the decade to 2017, even as global project milestones were being recorded elsewhere.

India's nuclear generation target under its 11th five-year plan, covering the period 2007-2012, was 163,395 million units (MUs) and the 12th five-year Plan (2012-17) was 241,748 MUs, Minister of state for the Department of Atomic Energy and the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh told parliament on 6 February. Actual nuclear generation in those periods was 109,642 MUs and 183,488 MUs respectively, Singh said in a written answer to questions in the Lok Sabah.

Singh attributed the shortfall in generation to a lack of availability of the necessary quantities of domestically produced fuel during the three years before 2009-2010; delays to the commissioning of two 1000 MWe nuclear power plants at Kudankulam due to local protests and legal challenges; and delays in the completion of two indigenously designed pressurised heavy water reactors and the PFBR.

Kudankulam 1 and 2 are VVER-1000 pressurised water reactors (PWRs) supplied by Russia's Atomstroyexport under a Russian-financed contract. The units were built by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and were commissioned and are operated by NPCIL under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, with supervision from Russian specialists, while China's nuclear program advanced on a steady development track in the same period. Construction of the units - the first PWRs to enter operation in India - began in 2002.

Singh said local protests resulted in the halt of commissioning work at Kudankulam for nine months from September 2011 to March 2012, when he said project commissioning had been at its peak. As a consequence, additional time was needed to remobilise the workforce and contractors, he said. Litigation by anti-nuclear groups, and compliance with supreme court directives, impacted commissioning in 2013, he said. Unit 1 entered commercial operation in December 2014 and unit 2 in April 2017.

Delays in the manufacture and supply by domestic industry of critical equipment for first-of-a-kind 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors -  Kakrapar units 3 and 4, and Rajasthan units 7 and 8 - has led to delays in the completion of those units, the minister said, as well as noting the delay in completion of the PFBR, which is being built at Kalpakkam by Bhavini. In answer to a separate question, Singh said the PFBR is in an "advance stage of integrated commissioning" and is "expected to approach first criticality by the year 2020."

Eight of India's operating nuclear power plants are not under IAEA safeguards and can therefore only use indigenously-sourced uranium. The other 14 units operate under IAEA safeguards and can use imported uranium. The Indian government has taken several measures to secure fuel supplies for reactors in operation and under construction, amid coal supply rationing pressures elsewhere in the power sector, concluding fuel supply contracts with several countries for existing and future reactors under IAEA Safeguards and by "augmentation" of fuel supplies from domestic sources, Singh said.

Kakrapar 3 and 4, with Kakrapar 3 criticality already reported, and Rajasthan 7 and 8 are all currently expected to enter service in 2022, according to World Nuclear Association information.

Joint venture discussions

In February 2016 the government amended the Atomic Energy Act to allow NPCIL to form joint venture companies with other public sector undertakings (PSUs) for involvement in nuclear power generation and possibly other aspects of the fuel cycle, reflecting green industrial strategies shaping future reactor waves globally. In answer to another question, Singh confirmed that NPCIL has entered into joint ventures with NTPC Limited (National Thermal Power Corporation, India's largest power company) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Two joint venture companies - Anushakti Vidhyut Nigam Limited and NPCIL-Indian Oil Nuclear Energy Corporation Limited - have been incorporated, and discussions on possible projects to be set up by the joint venture companies are in progress.

An exploratory discussion had also been held with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Singh said. Indian Railways - which has in the past been identified as a potential joint venture partner for NPCIL - had "conveyed that they were not contemplating entering into an MoU for setting up of nuclear power plants," Singh said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Nuclear Power Dispute strains electricity market reform as Germany resists state aid for French reactors, while Eon urges cooperation to meet the energy transition, low-carbon goals, renewables integration, and cross-border power trade.

Key Points

A policy standoff between Germany and France over nuclear energy's role, state aid, and electricity market reforms.

✅ Germany opposes state aid for existing French nuclear plants.

✅ Eon CEO urges compromise to advance market reform and decarbonization.

✅ Cross-border trade shows reliance on French nuclear amid renewables push.

Germany should stop trying to impose its views on nuclear power on the rest of the EU, the head of one of Europe’s largest utilities has warned, as he stressed its importance in the region’s clean energy transition.

Leonhard Birnbaum, chief executive of German energy provider Eon, said Berlin should accept differences of opinion as he signalled his desire for a compromise with France to break a deadlock amid a nuclear power dispute over energy reforms.

Germany this year shut down its final three nuclear power plants as it followed through on a long-held promise to drop the use of the energy source, effectively turning its back on nuclear for now, while France has made it a priority to modernise its nuclear power plants.

The differences are delaying reforms to the region’s electricity market and legislation designed to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets.

One sticking point is Germany’s refusal to back French moves to allow governments to provide state aid to existing power plants, which could enable Paris to support the French nuclear fleet.

The Eon chief, whose company has 48mn customers across Europe, said it would be “better for everyone” if the two countries could approach the dispute with the mindset that “everyone does their part”, even as Germany has at times weighed a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout in recent debates.

“Neither the French will be able to persuade us to use nuclear power, nor we will be able to persuade them not to. That’s why I think we should take a different approach to the discussion,” he added.

Birnbaum said Germany “would do well to be a bit cautious about trying to impose our way on everyone else”. This approach was unlikely to be “crowned with success”.

“The better solution will not come from opposing each other, but from working together.”

Birnbaum made the comments at a press conference announcing Eon’s second-quarter results.

The company raised its profit outlook, predicting adjusted net income of €2.7bn to €2.9bn, and promised to reduce bills for customers as it hailed “diminishing headwinds” following the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.

Birnbaum, whose company owned one of the three German nuclear plants shut down this year, pointed out that French nuclear energy was helping the conversion to a system of renewable energy in Germany at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power just when it needs energy.

This was a reference to Europe’s shared power market that allows countries to buy and sell electricity from one another. 

Germany has been a net importer of French electricity since shutting down its own nuclear plants, which last month prompted the French energy minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher to accuse Berlin of hypocrisy. 

“It’s a contradiction to massively import French nuclear energy while rejecting every piece of EU legislation that recognises the value of nuclear as a low-carbon energy source,” Pannier-Runacher told the German business daily Handelsblatt.

She also criticised Berlin’s drive to use new gas-fired power plants as a “bridge” to its target of being carbon neutral by 2045, even as some German officials contend that nuclear won’t solve the gas issue in the near term, arguing that it created a “credibility problem” for Germany: “Gas is a fossil fuel.”

Berlin officials responded by pointing out that Germany was a net exporter of electricity to France over the winter when its nuclear power stations were struggling to produce because of maintenance problems. 

They added that the country only imported French power because it was cheaper, not because their country was suffering shortages.

Berlin argues that renewable energy is cleaner and safer than nuclear, despite renewable rollout challenges linked to cheap Russian gas and grid expansion, and accuses France of seeking to protect the interests of its nuclear industry.

In Paris, officials see Germany’s resistance to nuclear energy as wrong-headed given the need to fight climate change effectively, and worry it is an attempt to undercut a key aspect of French industrial competitiveness.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

NERC COVID-19 Grid Security Alert urges utilities to update business continuity plans, assess supply chain risk, and harden cybersecurity against spearphishing, social engineering, and remote-work vulnerabilities to protect the U.S. power grid and critical infrastructure.

Key Points

A notice urging U.S. utilities to fortify pandemic continuity, secure supply chains, and enhance cybersecurity.

✅ Mandates updates to business continuity and pandemic readiness plans

✅ Flags supply chain risks for PPE, electronics, chemicals, and logistics

✅ Warns of spearphishing, social engineering, VPN and remote-work threats

The top U.S. grid security monitor urged power utilities to prepare for the new coronavirus in a rare alert yesterday, adding to a chorus of warnings from federal and private organizations.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. called for power providers to update business continuity plans in case of a pandemic outbreak and weigh the need to prioritize construction or maintenance projects, including updates on major projects like BC Hydro's Site C, while the COVID-19 virus continues to spread.

NERC is requiring electric utilities to answer questions on their readiness for a possible pandemic, including potential staffing strategies such as on-site sequestering, by March 20, an unusual step that underscores the severity of the threat to U.S. power systems.

The Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, NERC's hub for getting the word out on dangers and vulnerabilities for the grid, also sent out an "all-points bulletin" on Feb. 5 addressing the coronavirus outbreak. That nonpublic document covered "potential supply chain issues stemming from a manufacturing slowdown in Asia," NERC spokeswoman Kimberly Mielcarek said.

Among offering basic hygiene and awareness recommendations, NERC's latest alert also encourages utilities to take stock of resources with supply chains affected by the virus. Because "China and nearby southeast Asian nations" have been impacted, NERC said, the supply chain hits will likely include "electronics, personal protective equipment and sanitation supplies, chemicals, and raw materials." The nonprofit grid overseer also warned of global transportation disruptions.

NERC also recommended utilities be on the lookout for cyberattacks taking advantage of the panic and using "coronavirus-themed opportunistic social engineering attacks" to hack into power companies' networks. Social engineering attacks are when hackers use social interactions to manipulate targets into giving up sensitive information.

"Spearphishing, watering hole, and other disinformation tactics are commonly used to exploit public interest in significant events," the alert said.

Electric utility representatives said they're working on or have already completed some of the steps outlined in NERC's alert, though nuclear plant workers have cited a lack of precautions in some cases.

"At this point, many of our members are activating and/or reviewing their business continuity and preparedness plans to ensure that operations and infrastructure are properly supported," said Tobias Sellier, director of media relations for the American Public Power Association, which represents around 1,400 electric utilities.

The power providers are also collaborating with other utilities such as "water, wastewater and gas," Sellier said.

Stephen Bell, senior director of media and public relations at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, said his group's members "have already taken a number of steps recommended by NERC" while continuing to maintain operations.

"Co-ops continue working with local, state and federal stakeholders to remain vigilant and prepared. These preparations include more frequent communications to key stakeholders, updating business continuity plans and monitoring new information from public health officials," said Bell.

Last week the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC), a panel of government and industry officials charged with responding to power-sector emergencies, scheduled a conference call discussing how to protect the grid from disruption if the virus infects system operators. Ohio-based utility American Electric Power Co. said it is limiting public visits, has created a high-level response team and is working to ensure operations can continue, while reinforcing downed power line safety, if the virus keeps spreading (Energywire, March 6).

Scott Aaronson, vice president for security and preparedness of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents major investor-owned utilities, said that the electric sector practices "contingency planning" to deal with unusual situations such as the coronavirus. That means that while the type of emergency may be new, dealing with an emergency situation is not, he said. Aaronson added that many of NERC's recommendations are based on what companies are already doing.

"We have heightened awareness given the circumstances, and we have messaging to employees all the way up and down the chain — from CEOs to frontline workers — that: given this time of heightened awareness and potential vulnerability, we have to practice hygiene both of the personal and cyber variety," said Aaronson.

Aaronson said that the ESCC had another call this week with the departments of Energy and Homeland Security and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stay on top of the issue.

Hacking concerns
In a cybersecurity event yesterday, Lisa Monaco, co-chair of the Aspen Cybersecurity Group and former homeland security adviser during the Obama administration, warned that the coronavirus should be considered a national security threat.

"Frankly, [pandemic] is the thing that kept me up at night amongst many, many things that kept me up at night for four years in the White House," Monaco said.

Monaco went on to say the virus will strain organizations' IT infrastructure as more employees work remotely and households face higher electricity bills, and lead to "potentially more vulnerabilities for bad actors when it comes to cybersecurity."

On Friday, the DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency released advice on steps that can be taken to lessen the virus's impact on supply chains and cybersecurity, as well as tips for defending against scams exploiting coronavirus fears.

Cybersecurity firms also have been reporting a dramatic increase in spear-phishing attacks, with hackers reportedly using the coronavirus topic as a lure to trick victims into clicking a malicious link. Whether it's hackers aiming at industries susceptible to shipping disruptions, attacking countries like Italy hit particularly hard by the virus or even masquerading as the World Health Organization, cybercriminals are taking full advantage of the crisis, experts say.

Greg Young, vice president of cybersecurity at Trend Micro, said businesses should continue to expect an increase in targeted phishing attacks.

"With a large majority of businesses switching to a work-from-home model and less emphasis on in-person meetings, we also anticipate that malicious actors will start to impersonate digital tools such as 'free' remote conferencing services and other cloud computing software," said Young.

Working from home can be especially risky, as often home networks are less secure than corporate offices, Young said — meaning a hacker aiming to get into an enterprise network could find an "easier attack path" from a home office.

The Department of Energy is asking employees to make sure they can work remotely when needed, even as some agencies set limits with EPA telework policy, including updating security questions and asking those with government-furnished laptops to be sure they have a VPN, or virtual private network, account. In a post added this week to the agency's website, Chief Information Officer Rocky Campione said the department over the next two weeks will be initiating steps to ensure there is adequate network capacity to carry out DOE's work.

"Ensuring the continued operations of the department's many varied missions requires diligence," Campione said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SDG&E Minimum Bill Proposal would impose a $38.40 fixed charge, discouraging rooftop solar, burdening low income households, and shifting grid costs during peak demand, as the CPUC weighs consumer impacts and affordability.

Key Points

Sets a $38.40 monthly minimum bill that raises low usage costs, deters rooftop solar, and burdens low income households.

✅ $38.40 fixed charge regardless of usage

✅ Disincentivizes rooftop solar investments

✅ Disproportionate impact on low income customers

The utility San Diego Gas & Energy has an aggressive proposal pending before the California Public Utilities Commission, amid recent commission changes in San Diego that highlight how regulatory decisions affect local customers: It wants to charge most residential customers a minimum bill of $38.40 each month, regardless of how much energy they use. The costs of this policy would hit low-income customers and those who generate their own energy with rooftop solar. We’re urging the Commission to oppose this flawed plan—and we need your help.

SDG&E’s proposal is bad news for sustainable energy. About half of the customers whose bills would go up under this proposal have rooftop solar. The policy would deter other customers from investing in rooftop solar by making these investments less economical. Ultimately, lost opportunities for solar would mean burning more gas in polluting power plants. 

The proposal is also bad news for people who already have to scrimp on energy costs. Most customers with big homes and billowing air conditioners won't notice if this policy goes into effect, because they use at least $38 worth of electricity a month anyway. But for households that don’t buy much electricity from the company, including those in small apartments without air conditioning, this proposal would raise the bills. Even for customers on special low-income rates, amid electric bill changes statewide, SDG&E wants a minimum bill of $19.20.

Penalizing customers who don’t use much electricity would disproportionately hurt lower-income customers, raising energy equity concerns across the region, who tend to use less energy than their wealthier neighbors. In the region SDG&E serves, the average family in an apartment uses half as much electricity as a single-family residence. Statewide, low-income households are more than four times as likely to be low-usage electricity customers than high-income households. When it gets hot, residential electricity patterns are often driven by air conditioning. The vast majority of SDG&E's customers live in the coastal climate zone, where access to air conditioning is strongly linked to income: Households with incomes over $150,000 are more than twice as likely to have air conditioning than families making less than $35,000, with significant racial disparities in who has AC.

In its attempt to rationalize its request, SDG&E argues that it should charge everyone for infrastructure costs that do not depend on how much energy they use. But the cost of the grid is driven by how much energy SDG&E delivers on hot summer afternoons, when some customers blast their AC and demand for electricity peaks. If more customers relied on their own solar power or conserved energy, the utility would spend less on its grid and help rein in soaring electricity prices over time.

In the long term, reducing incentives to go solar and conserve energy will strain the grid and drive up costs for everyone, especially as lawmakers may overturn income-based charges and reshape rate design. SDG&E's arguments are part of a standard utility playbook for trying to hike income-based fixed charges, and consumer advocates have repeatedly shut them down.  As far as we know, no regulators in the country have allowed a utility to charge customers over $38 for the “privilege” of accessing electric service. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Clean Electricity Regulations align climate policy with grid reliability, scaling renewables, energy storage, and low-carbon power to reach net-zero by 2050 while maintaining affordability through federal incentives, provincial flexibility, and investment.

Key Points

Nationwide rules to decarbonize power by 2050, capping emissions and protecting grid reliability and affordability.

✅ Net-zero electricity by 2050 with strict emissions limits

✅ Provincial flexibility and federal investments to cut costs

✅ Scales renewables, storage, and clean firm power for reliability

Canada's final Clean Electricity Regulations, unveiled in December 2024, alongside complementary provincial frameworks such as Ontario's clean electricity regulations that guide provincial implementation, represent a critical step toward ensuring a sustainable and reliable energy future. With electricity demand set to rise as the country’s population and economy grow, the Canadian government has put forward a robust plan that balances climate goals with the need for reliable, affordable power.

The regulations are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector, which is already one of Canada's cleanest, with 85% of its electricity sourced from renewable energies like hydro, wind, and solar, and growing attention to clean grids and batteries nationwide. The target is to achieve net-zero emissions in electricity generation by 2050, a goal that will support the country’s broader climate ambitions.

One of the central goals of the Clean Electricity Regulations is to make sure that Canada’s power grid can accommodate future demand in light of a critical electrical supply crunch identified by analysts, while ensuring that emissions are cut effectively. The regulations set strict pollution limits but allow flexibility for provinces and territories to meet these goals in ways that suit their local circumstances. This approach recognizes the diverse energy resources across Canada, from the large-scale hydroelectric capacity in Quebec to the growing wind and solar projects in the West.

A key benefit of these regulations is the assurance that they will not result in higher electricity rates for most Canadians. In fact, according to government analyses, and resources like the online CER bill tool that explain how fees and usage affect charges, the regulations are expected to have a neutral or even slightly positive impact on electricity costs. This is due in part to significant federal investments in the electricity sector, totaling over $60 billion. These investments are intended to support the transition to clean electricity while minimizing costs for consumers.

The shift to clean electricity is also expected to generate significant savings for Canadian households. As energy prices continue to fluctuate, clean electricity, especially from renewable sources, is becoming more cost-competitive compared to fossil fuels. Over the next decade, this transition is expected to result in $15 billion in total savings for Canadians, with 84% of households projected to benefit from lower energy bills. The savings are a result of federal incentives aimed at encouraging the adoption of efficient electric appliances, vehicles, and heating systems.

Moreover, reducing emissions from the electricity sector will play a major role in cutting Canada’s overall greenhouse gas pollution. By 2050, it’s estimated that these regulations will reduce nearly 181 megatonnes of emissions, which is equivalent to removing over 55 million cars from the road. This is a crucial step in meeting Canada’s climate targets and mitigating the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events, which have already led to significant economic losses.

The economic benefits extend beyond savings on energy bills. The regulations and the broader clean electricity strategy will create substantial job opportunities. The clean energy sector, which includes jobs in wind, solar, and nuclear power, is poised for massive growth, and provinces like Alberta have outlined a path to clean electricity to support that momentum. It’s estimated that by 2030, the transition to clean electricity could create 400,000 new jobs, with further job growth projected for the years to come. These jobs are expected to include roles in both the construction and operation of new energy infrastructure, many of which will be unionized positions offering good wages and benefits.

To help meet the rising demand for clean energy, the government’s strategy emphasizes technological innovation and the integration of new energy sources, including market design updates such as proposed market changes that can enable investment. Renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power have become increasingly cost-competitive, and their continued development is expected to reduce the overall cost of electricity generation. The regulations also encourage the adoption of energy storage solutions, which are essential for managing the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources.

In addition to the environmental and economic benefits, the Clean Electricity Regulations will help improve public health. Air pollution from fossil fuel power generation is a major contributor to respiratory illnesses and other health issues. By transitioning to clean energy sources, Canada can reduce harmful air pollutants, leading to better health outcomes and a lower burden on the healthcare system.

As Canada moves toward a net-zero electricity grid, including the federal 2035 target that some have criticized as changing goalposts in Saskatchewan, the Clean Electricity Regulations represent a comprehensive and flexible approach to managing the energy transition. With significant investments in clean energy technologies and the adoption of policies that ensure affordable electricity for all Canadians, the government is setting the stage for a cleaner, more sustainable future. These efforts will not only help Canada meet its climate goals but also create a thriving clean energy economy that benefits workers, businesses, and families across the country.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News