Comverge reaches 126-MW demand reduction deal with Nevada Power

Biden Clean Energy Plan 2035 accelerates carbon-free electricity with renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass, invests $2T in EVs, grid and energy efficiency, and tightens fuel economy standards beyond the Clean Power Plan.

Key Points

A $2T U.S. climate plan for carbon-free power by 2035, boosting renewables, nuclear, EVs, efficiency, and grid upgrades.

✅ Targets a zero-carbon electric grid nationwide by 2035

✅ Includes renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass in standard

✅ Funds EVs, grid modernization, weatherization, and fuel economy rules

This month the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, Joe Biden, outlined an ambitious plan, including Biden’s solar plan to expand clean energy, for tackling climate change that shows how far the party has shifted on the issue since it controlled the White House.

President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan had called for the electricity sector to cut its carbon pollution 32 percent by 2030, and did not lay out a trajectory for phasing out oil, coal or natural gas production.

This year, Democratic 2020 hopefuls such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went much further, suggesting the United States should derive all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, moving to 100% renewables as part of a $16.3 trillion plan to wean the nation away from fossil fuels. Many other congressional Democrats have embraced the Green New Deal — the nonbinding resolution calling for a carbon-free power sector by 2030 and more energy efficient buildings and vehicles, along with a massive investment in electric vehicles and high-speed rail.

Last year, 38 percent of U.S. electricity generated came from clean sources, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and in April renewables hit a record 28% nationwide.

Biden’s new plan, which carries a price tag of $2 trillion, would eliminate carbon emissions from the electric sector by 2035, impose stricter gas mileage standards, fund investments to weatherize millions of homes and commercial buildings, and upgrade the nation’s transportation system. To reach its 2035 carbon-free electricity goal, the campaign includes wind, solar and several forms of energy, acknowledging why the grid isn’t yet 100% renewable while balancing reliability, that are not always counted in state renewable portfolio standards, such as nuclear, hydropower and biomass.

“A great appeal of the Biden proposal is that it is much closer to targeting carbon directly, which is the ultimate enemy, and plays fewer favorites with particular technologies,” said Michael Greenstone, who directs the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute. “This will reduce the costs to consumers and give more carbon bang for the buck.”

But some environmentalists, such as Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica, question the idea of including more controversial carbon-free technologies. “There is no role for nuclear in a least-cost, low carbon world. Including these dinosaurs in a clean energy standard is going to incentivize industry efforts to keep aging, dangerous facilities online,” Pica said in an email.

Hydropower, which relies on a system of moving water that constantly recharges, is defined as renewable by the Environmental Protection Agency. Biomass is often considered as carbon neutral because even though it releases carbon dioxide when it is burned, the plants capture nearly the same amount of CO2 while growing.

Both forms of energy have come under fire for their environmental impacts, however. Damming streams and rivers can destroy fish habitat and make it more difficult for them to spawn, and it also seems unlikely that hydropower will expand its current 6 percent share of the nation’s electrical grid.

Many experts argue that classifying biomass energy as carbon neutral provides an incentive to cut down trees that would otherwise remain standing and sequester carbon. “If burning this wood were good for the climate, then we should not recycle paper, we should burn it,” noted Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.

Illinois lead the nation in the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power

More than half of the country — 30 states, Washington, and three territories — have adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and seven states and one territory have set renewable energy goals. While 14 states, along with the District, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, have established requirements of 50 percent or more carbon-free electricity, nearly as many have set theirs at 15 percent or less.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D), who has called for 100% renewable electricity in the state, has pushed clean electricity aggressively since taking office in 2019, lifting a wind energy moratorium imposed by her predecessor and signing bills aimed at expanding the state’s carbon-free energy sources. Biomass accounts for a quarter of the state’s electricity, more than any other state.

New York has one of the country’s most ambitious climate targets, which it scaled up last year. It aims to obtain 70 percent of its power from renewable sources within a decade, a period when renewables surpassed coal in U.S. generation, and eliminate carbon altogether by 2040, even as the state is in the process of shutting down a major nuclear plant near New York City, Indian Point, which is slated to cease operating on April 30, 2021.

... while other states are weakening theirs

Last year, Ohio weakened its renewable energy standard from a target of 12.5 percent in 2027 to 8.5 percent by 2026, even as renewables topped coal nationwide for the first time in over a century, without setting any future goals, and jettisoned its energy efficiency standard. West Virginia — which established modest renewable requirements in 2009 — repealed them altogether in 2015, the year they were set to take effect.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario TOU Electricity Rate Relief offers 24/7 fixed off-peak pricing at 10.1¢/kWh, suspending time-of-use tiers to support residential customers, small businesses, and farms, coordinated by the Ontario Energy Board during COVID-19.

Key Points

A 45-day policy fixing TOU power at 10.1¢/kWh 24/7 off-peak to ease costs for residents, small businesses, and farms.

✅ Applies 24/7 off-peak 10.1¢/kWh to all TOU electricity customers.

✅ Automatic bill credit; no application or enrollment required.

✅ Covers residential, small businesses, and farms; OEB coordination.

To support Ontarians through the rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation, the Government of Ontario is providing immediate electricity rate relief for families, small businesses and farms paying time-of-use (TOU) rates.

For a 45-day period, the government is working to suspend time-of-use electricity rates, holding electricity prices to the off-peak rate of 10.1 cents-per-kilowatt-hour. This reduced price will be available 24 hours per day, seven days a week to all time-of-use customers, who make up the majority of electricity consumers in the province. By switching to a fixed off-peak rate, time-of-use customers will see rate reductions of over 50 per cent compared to on-peak rates now in effect.

To deliver savings as quickly and conveniently as possible, this discount will be applied automatically to electricity bills without the need for customers to fill out an application form.

"During this unprecedented time, we are providing much-needed relief to Ontarians, specifically helping those who are doing the right thing by staying home and small businesses that have closed or are seeing fewer customers," said Premier Doug Ford. "By adopting a fixed, 24/7 off-peak rate, aligned with ultra-low overnight pricing options, we are making things a little easier during these difficult times and putting more money in people's pockets for other important priorities and necessities."

The Government of Ontario issued an Emergency Order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act to apply the off-peak TOU electricity rate for residential, small businesses, and farm customers who currently pay TOU rates.

"Ontario is fortunate to have a strong electricity system we can rely on during these exceptional times, even as Ottawa's electricity consumption decreased during the pandemic, and our government is proud to provide additional relief to Ontarians who are doing their part to stay home," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

"We thank the Ontario Energy Board and our partners at local distribution companies across the province, including initiatives like Hydro One's Ultra-Low Overnight Price Plan that support customers, for taking quick action to make this change and provide immediate support for hardworking people of Ontario," said Bill Walker, Associate Minister of Energy.

Visit Ontario's website to learn more about how the province continues to protect Ontarians from COVID-19.

Quick Facts

• The Ontario Energy Board sets time-of-use electricity rates for residential and small business customers through the Regulated Price Plan, and provides stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial companies through separate programs.
• Time-of-use prices as of November, 2019 ― Off-Peak: 10.1₵/kWh, Mid-Peak: 14.4₵/kWh, On-Peak: 20.8₵/kWh
• Depending on billing cycles, some customers will see these changes on their next electricity bill. TOU customers whose billing cycle ended before their local distribution company implemented this change will receive the reduced rate as a credit on a future bill.
• The Ontario Electricity Rebate (OER) will continue to provide a 31.8 per cent rebate on the sub-total bill amount for all existing Regulated Price Plan (RPP) consumers.
• There are approximately five million residential consumers, farms and some small businesses billed using time-of-use (TOU) electricity prices under the RPP.
• The Ontario Energy Board has extended the winter ban on disconnections to July 31st.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

U.S. Grid Modernization is critical for renewable energy integration, EV adoption, climate resilience, and reliability, requiring transmission upgrades, inter-regional links, hardened substations, and smart grid investments to handle extreme weather and decarbonization targets.

Key Points

U.S. Grid Modernization upgrades power networks to improve reliability, integrate renewables, and support EV demand.

✅ $2T+ investment needed for transmission upgrades

✅ Extreme weather doubling outages since 2017

✅ Regulatory fragmentation slows inter-regional lines

After decades of struggle, the U.S. clean-energy business is booming, with soaring electric-car sales and fast growth in wind and solar power. That’s raising hopes for the fight against climate change.

All this progress, however, could be derailed, as the green revolution stalls without a massive overhaul of America’s antiquated electric infrastructure – a task some industry experts say requires more than $2 trillion. The current network of transmission wires, substations and transformers is decaying with age and underinvestment, a condition highlighted by catastrophic failures during increasingly frequent and severe weather events.

Power outages over the last six years have more than doubled in number compared to the previous six years, according to a Reuters examination of federal data. In the past two years, power systems have collapsed in Gulf Coast hurricanes, West Coast wildfires, Midwest heat waves and a Texas deep freeze and recurring Texas grid crisis risks, causing long and sometimes deadly outages.

Compounding the problem, the seven regional grid operators in the United States are underestimating the growing threat of severe weather caused by climate change, Reuters found in a review of more than 10,000 pages of regulatory documents and operators’ public disclosures. Their risk models, used to guide transmission-network investments, consider historical weather patterns extending as far back as the 1970s. None account for scientific research documenting today’s more extreme weather and how it can disrupt grid generation, transmission and fuel supplies simultaneously.

The decrepit power infrastructure of the world’s largest economy is among the biggest obstacles to expanding clean energy and combating climate change on the ambitious schedule laid out by U.S. President Joe Biden. His administration promises to eliminate or offset carbon emissions from the power sector by 2035 and from the entire U.S. economy by 2050. Such rapid clean-energy growth would pressure the nation’s grid in two ways: Widespread EV adoption will spark a huge surge in power demand; and increasing dependence on renewable power creates reliability problems on days with less sun or wind, as seen in Texas, where experts have outlined reliability improvements that address these challenges.

The U.S. transmission network has seen outages double in recent years amid more frequent and severe weather events, driven by climate change and a utility supply-chain crunch that slows critical repairs. The system needs a massive upgrade to handle expected growth in clean energy and electric cars. 

“Competition from renewables is being strangled without adequate and necessary upgrades to the transmission network,” said Simon Mahan, executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association, which represents solar and wind companies.

The federal government, however, lacks the authority to push through the massive grid expansion and modernization needed to withstand wilder weather and accommodate EVs and renewable power. Under the current regulatory regime, and amid contentious electricity pricing proposals in recent years, the needed infrastructure investments are instead controlled by a Byzantine web of local, state and regional regulators who have strong political incentives to hold down spending, according to Reuters interviews with grid operators, federal and state regulators, and executives from utilities and construction firms.

“Competition from renewables is being strangled without adequate and necessary upgrades to the transmission network.”

Paying for major grid upgrades would require these regulators to sign off on rate increases likely to spark strong opposition from consumers and local and state politicians, who are keen to keep utility bills low. In addition, utility companies often fight investments in transmission-network improvements because they can result in new connections to other regional grids that could allow rival companies to compete on their turf, even as coal and nuclear disruptions raise brownout risks in some regions. With the advance of green energy, those inter-regional connections will become ever more essential to move power from far-flung solar and wind installations to population centers.

The power-sharing among states and regions with often conflicting interests makes it extremely challenging to coordinate any national strategy to modernize the grid, said Alison Silverstein, an independent industry consultant and former senior adviser to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

“The politics are a freakin’ nightmare,” she said.

The FERC declined to comment for this story. FERC Commissioner Mark Christie, a Republican, acknowledged the limitations of the agency’s power over the U.S. grid in an April 21 agency meeting involving transmission planning and costs.

“We can’t force states to do anything,” Christie said.

The White House and Energy Department did not comment in response to detailed questions from Reuters on the Biden administration’s plans to tackle U.S. grid problems and their impact on green-energy expansion.

The administration said in an April news release that it plans to offer $2.5 billion in grants for grid-modernization projects as part of Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure package, complementing a proposed clean electricity standard to accelerate decarbonization over the next decade. A modernized grid, the release said, is the “linchpin” of Biden’s clean-energy agenda.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Sycamore Energy Manitoba Hydro Lawsuit centers on alleged mismanagement of the solar rebate incentive program, project delays, inspection backlogs, and alleged customer interference, impacting renewable energy installations, contractors, and clean power investment across Manitoba.

Key Points

Claim alleging mismanagement of Manitoba's solar rebate, delays, and inducing customers to switch installers.

✅ Lawsuit alleges mismanaged solar rebate incentive program

✅ Delays in inspections left hundreds of projects incomplete

✅ Claims Hydro urged customers to switch installers for rebates

Sycamore Energy filed a statement of claim Monday in Manitoba Court of Queens Bench against Manitoba Hydro saying it badly mismanaged its Solar Energy Program, a dispute that comes as Canada's solar progress faces criticism nationwide.

The claim also noted the crown corporation caused significant financial and reputational damage to Sycamore Energy, echoing disputes like Ontario wind cancellation costs seen elsewhere.

The statement of claim says Manitoba Hydro was telling customers to find other companies to complete solar panel installations, even as Nova Scotia's solar charge debate has unfolded.

'I'm still waiting': dozens of Manitoba solar system installations in the queue under expired incentive program
This all comes after a pilot project was launched in the province in April 2016, which would allow people to apply for a rebate under the incentive program, while Saskatchewan adjusted solar credits in parallel, and the project would cover about 25 per cent of the installation costs.

The project ended in April 2018, but hundreds of approved projects had yet to be finished.

According to Manitoba Hydro, in November there were 252 approved projects awaiting completion by more than one contractor, and Sycamore Energy said it had about 100 of those projects, a dynamic seen as New England's solar growth strains grid upgrades in other regions.

At the time Sycamore Energy COO, Alex Stuart, blamed Manitoba Hydro for the delays, stating it took too long to get inspections after solar systems were installed.

Scott Powell, Manitoba Hydro’s director of corporate communications, said in November he disagreed with Sycamore Energy’s comments, even as Ontario moves to reintroduce renewables elsewhere.

In a news release, the company said it sold more installations under Manitoba Hydro’s Solar Energy Program compared to other companies and it was instrumental in helping set up standards for the program.

“Manitoba Hydro mismanaged the solar rebate program from the beginning. In the end, they targeted our company unfairly and unlawfully by inducing our customers to break their contracts with us. Manitoba Hydro told our customers they could get an extension to their rebate but only if they switched to different installers,” said Justin Phillips, CEO of Sycamore Energy in a news release.

“We would much rather be installing clean, effective solar power projects for our customers right now. The last thing we want to do is to be suing Manitoba Hydro, but we feel we have no choice. Their actions have cost us millions in lost business. They’ve also cost the province jobs, millions in private investment and a positive way forward to help combat climate change.”

Manitoba Hydro now has 20 days to respond to the action, and a recent Cornwall wind-farm ruling underscores the stakes.

When asked for a response from CTV News, a spokesperson for the Crown corporation said it hadn’t yet been made aware of the suit.

“If a statement of claim is filed and served, we’ll file a statement of defence in due course. As this matter is now apparently before the courts, we have no further comment,” the spokesperson said.

None of these allegations have been proven in court.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

World Bank Energy Policy debates financing for coal, oil, gas, and renewables to fight energy poverty, expand grid reliability, ensure baseload power, and balance climate goals with development finance for affordable, reliable electricity access.

Key Points

It outlines the bank's stance on financing fossil fuels and renewables to expand affordable, reliable electricity.

✅ Focus on energy access, baseload reliability, and poverty alleviation

✅ Debate over coal, gas, and renewables in development finance

✅ Geopolitics: China and Russia fill funding gaps, raising risks

Why isn’t the World Bank using all available energy resources in its global efforts to fight poverty? That’s the question I’ve asked World Bank President David Malpass. Nearly two years ago, the multilateral development bank decided to stop supporting critical coal, oil and gas projects that help people in developing countries escape poverty.

Along with 11 other senators, and as a member who votes on whether to give U.S. taxpayer dollars to the World Bank, I am pressing the bank to lift these restrictions. Developing countries desperately need access to a steady supply of affordable, reliable clean electricity to support economic growth.

The World Bank has pulled funding for critical electricity projects in poor countries, including high-efficiency power stations that are fueled by coal, even as efforts to revitalize coal communities with clean energy have grown.

Despite Kosovo having the world’s fifth-largest reserves of coal, the bank announced it would only support new energy projects from renewable sources going forward. Kosovo’s Minister of Economic Development Valdrin Lluka responded: “We don’t have the luxury to do such experiments in a poor country such as Kosovo. … It is in our national security interest to secure base energy inside our country.”

The World Bank’s misguided move comes as 840 million people worldwide are living without electricity, including 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa, and as the fall in global energy investment may lead to shortages.

Even more troubling, nearly 3 billion people in developing countries rely on fuels like wood and other biomass for cooking and home heating, resulting in serious health problems and premature deaths, and the pandemic saw widespread electricity shut-offs that deepened energy insecurity. In 2016, household smoke killed an estimated 2.6 million people.

The World Bank’s mission is to lift people out of poverty. The bank is now compromising that mission in favor of a political agenda targeting certain energy sources.

With the World Bank blocking financing to affordable and reliable energy projects, Russia and China are stepping up their investments in order to gain geopolitical leverage.

President Vladimir Putin is pursuing Russian oil and gas projects in Mozambique, Gabon, and Angola. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is supporting traditional energy resources, with 36 percent of its power projects from 2014 to 2017 involving coal. South Africa had to turn to the China Development Bank to fund its $1.5 billion coal-fired power plant.

There are real risks for countries partnering with China and Russia on these projects. Developing countries are facing what some are calling China’s “debt trap” diplomacy. These nations have also raised concerns over safety compliance, unfair business practices, and labor standards.

As the bank’s largest contributor, the United States has a duty to make sure U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely and effectively. Every U.S. dollar at the World Bank should make a difference for people in the developing world.

My colleagues and I have asked the bank to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy as it strives to achieve its mission to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. We will take the bank’s response into account during the congressional appropriations process.

The United States is a top global energy producer. And yet Democrats running for president are pursuing anti-energy policies that would hurt not only the United States but the entire world, with implications for U.S. national security as well.

Utilizing our abundant energy resources has fueled an American energy renaissance and a booming U.S. economy, even as disruptions in coal and nuclear have strained the grid, with millions of new jobs and higher wages.

People who are struggling to survive and thrive in developing countries deserve the same opportunity to access affordable and reliable sources of power.

As Microsoft founder and global philanthropist Bill Gates has noted of renewables: "Many people experiencing energy poverty live in areas without access to the kind of grids that are needed to make those technologies cheap and reliable enough to replace fossil fuels."

Ultimately, there is a role for all sources of energy to help countries alleviate poverty and improve the education, health and wellbeing of their people.

The solution to ending energy poverty does not lie in limiting options, but in using all available options. The World Bank must recommit to ending extreme poverty by helping countries use all of the world’s abundant energy resources. Let’s end energy poverty now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News