Italy's Council of Ministries approved a legislative decree setting the instruments, mechanisms and incentives, as well as the institutional, financial and legal framework required for the achievement of the 17 quota of renewable energy required in the country by 2020, as established by European Union directive 2009/28/CE.
In general, the decree establishes modifications on the permitting procedures and foresees a new incentives system for renewable sources of energy that begin operations after January 1, 2013. While the legislation makes differences for smaller and larger facilities, the main issue within the decree is the regulation of photovoltaic facilities, which is aimed to limit the construction of these facilities for speculative reasons and to help ensure long-term development in the sector.
The most relevant measures include:
• a new incentives scheme for photovoltaic PV facilities connected to the grid after May 31, 2011. This incentives system will be defined by April 30.
• Photovoltaic facilities with an installed capacity of more than 1 megawatt MW on agricultural lands will be excluded from federal incentives.
• Photovoltaic facilities on agricultural lands with installed capacity less than or equal to 1 MW will be included in the incentives scheme, as long as the area for construction does not exceed 10 of the area owned by the developer. This restriction vanishes if the lands are idle for more than five years.
The decree is an attempt to bring order to this sector, which exploded last year, moving from 1,142 MW at the end of 2009 to 7,000 MW by the end of 2010. This boom was experienced throughout Europe, with a 115 increase in photovoltaic facilities on the continent, reaching 25 gigawatts of generating capacity. This can be explained by overly generous incentive schemes, forcing the major players in the European photovoltaic market Germany, Spain and France to review and reduce their incentives systems.
In Italy, regional governments also tried to control and regulate renewable energy development in their territories. For example, Sardinia changed the regulation of renewable energy production in March 2010 by banning offshore windfarms, monopolizing the development of onshore windfarms through an ad-hoc state company, and changing the permitting procedures and limiting the installation of solar photovoltaic facilities on farmland. The Northern region of Veneto, which is establishing a new regional energy plan, has blocked all regional authorizations for photovoltaic facilities larger than 0.2 MW on agricultural lands and biomass or biofuel-fired facilities larger than 0.5 MW and 1 MW, respectively, until the approval of the plan.
EU Gas Price Cap Strategies aim to curb inflation during an energy crisis by capping wholesale gas and electricity generation costs, balancing supply and demand, mitigating subsidies, and safeguarding supply security amid Russia-Ukraine shocks.
Key Points
Temporary EU measures to cap gas and power prices, curb inflation, manage demand, and protect supply security.
✅ Flexible temporary price limits to secure gas supplies
✅ Framework cap on gas for electricity generation with demand checks
✅ Risk: subsidies, higher demand, and market distortions
The European Commission has outlined possible strategies to cap gas prices as the bloc faces a looming energy crisis this winter.
Member states are divided over the emergency measures designed to pull down soaring inflation amid Russia's war in Ukraine.
One proposal is a temporary "flexible" limit on gas prices to ensure that Europe can continue to secure enough gas, EU energy commissioner Kadri Simson said on Tuesday.
Another option could be an EU-wide "framework" for a price cap on gas used to generate electricity, which would be combined with measures to ensure gas demand does not rise as a result, she said.
EU leaders are meeting on Friday to debate gas price cap strategies amid warnings that Europe's energy nightmare could worsen this winter.
Last week, France, Italy, Poland and 12 other EU countries urged the Commission to propose a broader price cap targeting all wholesale gas trade.
Russia has slashed gas deliveries to Europe since its February invasion of Ukraine, with Moscow blaming the cuts on Western sanctions imposed in response to the invasion, as the EU advances a plan to dump Russian energy across the bloc.
Since then, the EU has agreed on emergency laws to fill gas storage and windfall profit levies to raise money to help consumers with bills.
Price cap critics One energy analyst told Euronews that an energy price cap was an "unchartered territory" for the European Union.
The EU's energy sector is largely liberalised and operates under the fundamental rules of supply and demand, making rolling back electricity prices complex in practice.
"My impression is that member states are looking at prices and quantities in isolation and that's difficult because of economics," said Elisabetta Cornago, a senior energy researcher at the Centre for European Reform.
"It's hard to picture such a level of market intervention This is uncharted territory."
The energy price cap would "quickly start costing billions" because it would force governments to continually subsidise the difference between the real market price and the artificially capped price, another expert said.
"If you are successful and prices are low and you still get gas, consumers will increase their demand: low price means high demand. Especially now that winter is coming," said Bram Claeys, a senior advisor at the Regulatory Assistance Project.
Renewable Energy Cost Trends highlight IRENA data showing solar and wind undercut coal, as utility-scale projects drive lower levelized electricity costs worldwide, with the Middle East and UAE advancing mega solar parks.
Key Points
They track how solar and wind undercut new fossil fuels as utility-scale costs drop and investment accelerates.
✅ IRENA reports renewables cheapest for new installations
Renewable power projects have undercut traditional coal fuel plants, with solar and wind power costs in particular falling as record-breaking growth continues worldwide.
“Installing new renewables increasingly costs less than the cheapest fossil fuels. With or without the health and economic crisis, dirty coal plants were overdue to be consigned to the past, said Francesco La Camera, director-general of IRENA said in the report.
In 2019, renewables accounted for around 72 percent of all new capacity added worldwide, IRENA said, following a 2016 record year that highlighted the momentum, with lowering costs and technological improvements in solar and wind power helping this dynamic. For solar energy, IRENA notes that the cost for electricity from utility-scale plants fell by 82 percent in the decade between 2010 and 2019, as China's solar PV growth underscored in 2016.
“More than half of the renewable capacity added in 2019 achieved lower electricity costs than new coal, while new solar and wind projects are also undercutting the cheapest and least sustainable of existing coal-fired plants,” Camera added.
Costs for solar and wind power also fell year-on-year by 13 and 9 percent, respectively, with offshore wind costs showing steep declines as well. In 2019, more than half of all newly commissioned utility-scale renewable power plants provided electricity cheaper than the lowest cost of a new fossil fuel plant.
The Middle East
In mid-May, a report by UK-based law firm Ashurst suggested the Middle East is the second most popular region for renewable energy investment after North America, at a time when clean energy investment is outpacing fossil fuels.
The region is home to some of the largest renewable energy bets in the world, with Saudi wind expansion gathering pace. The UAE, for instance, is currently developing the Mohammed Bin Rashid Solar Park, the world’s largest concentrated solar power project in the world.
Around 26 percent of Middle East respondents in Ashurst’s survey said that they were presently investing in energy transition, marking the region as the most popular for current investment in renewables, while 11 percent added that they were considering investing.
In North America, the most popular region, 28 percent said that they were currently investing, with 11 percent stating they are considering investing.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
ERCOT Texas Power Grid Crisis disrupts millions amid a winter storm, with rolling blackouts, power outages, and energy demand; Elon Musk criticizes ERCOT as Tesla owners use Camp Mode while wind turbines face icing
Key Points
A Texas blackout during a winter storm, exposing ERCOT failures, rolling blackouts, and urgent grid resilience measures.
✅ Millions without power amid record cold and energy demand
✅ Elon Musk criticizes ERCOT over grid reliability failures
✅ Tesla Camp Mode aids warmth during extended outages
Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Wednesday slammed the Texas agency responsible for a statewide blackout amid a U.S. grid with frequent outages that has left millions of people to fend for themselves in a freezing cold winter storm.
Musk tweeted that Texas’ power grid manager, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), is not earning the “R” in the acronym, highlighting broader grid vulnerabilities that critics have noted.
Musk moved to Texas from California in December and is building a new Tesla factory in Austin. His critique of the state’s electrical grid operator came after multiple Tesla owners in the state said they had slept in their vehicles to keep warm amid the lingering power outage.
In 2019, Tesla released a vehicle with a “Camp Mode,” which enables owners to use the vehicle’s features – like lights and climate control – without significantly depleting the battery.
“We had the power go out for 6 hours last night. Our house does not have gas, and we ran out of firewood... what are we going to do,” one Reddit user wrote on “r/TeslaMotors.”
“So my wife my dog and my newborn daughter slept in the garage in our Model3 all nice and cozy. If I didn't have this car, it would have been a very rough night.”
More than two dozen people have died in the extreme weather this week, some while struggling to find warmth inside their homes. In the Houston area, one family succumbed to carbon monoxide from car exhaust in their garage. Another perished as they used a fireplace to keep warm.
Utilities from Minnesota to Texas and Mississippi have implemented rolling blackouts to ease the burden on power grids straining to meet extreme demand for heat and electricity, as longer, more frequent outages hit systems nationwide.
More than 3 million customers remained without power in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, more than 200,000 more in four Appalachian states, and nearly that many in the Pacific Northwest, according to poweroutage.us, which tracks utility outage reports, and advocates warn that millions could face summer shut-offs without protections.
ERCOT said early Wednesday that electricity had been restored to 600,000 homes and businesses by Tuesday night, though nearly 3 million homes and businesses remained without power, as California turns to batteries to help balance demand. Officials did not know when power would be restored.
ERCOT President Bill Magness said he hoped many customers would see at least partial service restored soon but could not say definitively when that would be.
Magness has defended ERCOT’s decision, saying it prevented an “even more catastrophic than the terrible events we've seen this week."
Utility crews raced Wednesday to restore power to nearly 3.4 million customers around the U.S. who were still without electricity in the aftermath of a deadly winter storm, even as officials urge residents to prepare for summer blackouts that could tax systems further, and another blast of ice and snow threatened to sow more chaos.
The latest storm front was expected to bring more hardship to states that are unaccustomed to such frigid weather — parts of Texas, Arkansas and the Lower Mississippi Valley — before moving into the Northeast on Thursday.
"There's really no letup to some of the misery people are feeling across that area," said Bob Oravec, lead forecaster with the National Weather Service, referring to Texas.
Sweden, known for its brutally cold climate, has offered some advice to Texans unaccustomed to such freezing temperatures, as Canadian grids are increasingly exposed to harsh weather that strains reliability. Stefan Skarp of the Swedish power company told Bloomberg on Tuesday: “The problem with sub-zero temperatures and humid air is that ice will form on the wind turbines.”
“When ice freezes on to the wings, the aerodynamic changes for the worse so that wings catch less and less wind until they don't catch any wind at all,” he said.
Ireland Coal-Free Electricity Record: EirGrid reports 25 days without coal on the all-island grid, as wind power, renewables, and natural gas dominated generation, cutting CO2 emissions, with Moneypoint sidelined by market competitiveness.
Key Points
It is a 25-day period when the grid used no coal, relying on gas and renewables to reduce CO2 emissions.
✅ 25 days coal-free between April 11 and May 7
✅ Gas 60%, renewables 30% of generation mix
✅ Eurostat: 6.8% drop in Ireland's CO2 emissions
The island of Ireland has gone a record length of time without using coal-fired electricity generation on its power system, Britain's week-long coal-free run providing a recent comparator, Eirgrid has confirmed.
The all-island grid operated without coal between April 11th and May 7th – a total of 25 days, it confirmed. This is the longest period of time the grid has operated without coal since the all-island electricity market was introduced in 2007, echoing Britain's record coal-free stretch seen recently.
Ireland’s largest generating station, Moneypoint in Co Clare, uses coal, with recent price spikes in Ireland fueling concerns about dispatchable capacity, as do some of the larger generation sites in Northern Ireland.
The analysis coincides with the European statistics agency, Eurostat publishing figures showing annual CO2 emissions in Ireland fell by 6.8 per cent last year; partly due to technical problems at Moneypoint.
Over the 25-day period, gas made up 60 per cent of the fuel mix, while renewable energy, mainly wind, accounted for 30 per cent, echoing UK wind surpassing coal in 2016 across the market. Coal-fired generation was available during this period but was not as competitive as other methods.
EirGrid group chief executive Mark Foley said this was “a really positive development” as coal was the most carbon intense of all electricity sources, with its share hitting record lows in the UK in recent years.
“We are acutely aware of the challenges facing the island in terms of meeting our greenhouse gas emission targets, mindful that low-carbon generation stalled in the UK in 2019, through the deployment of more renewable energy on the grid,” he added.
Last year 33 per cent of the island’s electricity came from renewable energy sources, German renewables surpassing coal and nuclear offering a parallel milestone, a new record. Coal accounted for 9 per cent of electricity generation, down from 12.9 per cent in 2017.
Canada Clean Electricity drives a net-zero grid by 2035, scaling renewables like wind, solar, and hydro, with storage, smart grids, interprovincial transmission, and electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry to cut emissions and costs.
Key Points
Canada Clean Electricity is a shift to a net-zero grid by 2035 using renewables, storage, and smart grids to decarbonize
✅ Doubles non-emitting generation for electrified transport and heating
✅ Expands wind, solar, hydro with storage and smart-grid balancing
✅ Builds interprovincial lines and faster permitting with Indigenous partners
By Merran Smith and Mark Zacharias
Canada is an electricity heavyweight. In addition to being the world’s sixth-largest electricity producer and third-largest electricity exporter in the global electricity market today, Canada can boast an electricity grid that is now 83 per cent emission-free, not to mention residential electricity rates that are the cheapest in the Group of Seven countries.
Indeed, on the face of it, the country’s clean electricity system appears poised for success. With an abundance of sunshine and blustery plains, Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Prairie provinces most often cited for wind and solar, have wind- and solar-power potential that rivals the best on the continent. Meanwhile, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador have long excelled at generating low-cost hydro power.
So it would only be natural to assume that Canada, with this solid head start and its generous geography, is already positioned to provide enough affordable clean electricity to power our much-touted net-zero and economic ambitions.
But the reality is that Canada, like most countries, is not yet prepared for a world increasingly committed to carbon neutrality, in part because demand for solar electricity has lagged, even as overall momentum grows.
The federal government’s forthcoming Clean Electricity Standard – a policy promised by the governing Liberals during the most recent election campaign and restated for an international audience by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the United Nations’ COP26 climate summit – would require all electricity in the country to be net zero by 2035 nationwide, setting a new benchmark. But while that’s an encouraging start, it is by no means the end goal. Electrification – that is, hooking up our vehicles, heating systems and industry to a clean electricity grid – will require Canada to produce roughly twice as much non-emitting electricity as it does today in just under three decades.
This massive ramp-up in clean electricity will require significant investment from governments and utilities, along with their co-operation on measures and projects such as interprovincial power lines to build an electric, connected and clean system that can deliver benefits nationwide. It will require energy storage solutions, smart grids to balance supply and demand, and energy-efficient buildings and appliances to cut energy waste.
While Canada has mostly relied on large-scale hydroelectric and nuclear power in the past, newer sources of electricity such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass with carbon capture and storage will, in many cases, be the superior option going forward, thanks to the rapidly falling costs of such technology and shorter construction times. And yet Canada added less solar and wind generation in the past five years than all but three G20 countries – Indonesia, Russia and Saudi Arabia, with some experts calling it a solar power laggard in recent years. That will need to change, quickly.
In addition, Canada’s Constitution places electricity policy under provincial jurisdiction, which has produced a patchwork of electricity systems across the country that use different energy sources, regulatory models, and approaches to trade and collaboration. While this model has worked to date, given our low consumer rates and high power reliability, collaborative action and a cohesive vision will be needed – not just for a 100-per-cent clean grid by 2035, but for a net-zero-enabling one by 2050.
Right now, it takes too long to move a clean power project from the proposal stage to operation – and far too long if we hope to attain a clean grid by 2035 and a net-zero-enabling one by 2050. This means that federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments must work with rural communities and industry stakeholders to accelerate the approvals, financing and construction of clean energy projects and provide investor certainty.
In doing so, Canada can set a course to carbon neutrality while driving job creation and economic competitiveness, a transition many analyses deem practical and profitable in the long run. Our closest trading partners and many of the world’s largest companies and investors are demanding cleaner goods. A clean grid underpins clean production, just as it underpins our climate goals.
The International Energy Agency estimates that, for the world to reach net zero by 2050, clean electricity generation worldwide must increase by more than 2.5 times between today and 2050. Countries are already plotting their energy pathways, and there is much to learn from each other.
Consider South Australia. The state currently gets 62 per cent of its electricity from wind and solar and, combined with grid-scale battery storage, has not lost a single hour of electricity in the past five years. South Australia expects 100 per cent of its electricity to come from renewable sources before 2030. An added bonus given today’s high energy prices: Annual household electricity costs have declined there by 303 Australian dollars ($276) since 2018.
The transition to clean energy is not about sacrificing our way of life – it’s about improving it. But we’ll need the power to make it happen. That work needs to start now.
Merran Smith is the executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a program at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. Mark Zacharias is a special adviser at Clean Energy Canada and visiting professor at the Simon Fraser University School of Public Policy.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
