Federal regulators reviewing Duke Energy's license to create power on the Catawba River want the utility to do more to protect the river.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has endorsed many of Duke's proposals for its new license. But the utility disagreed with nearly three-dozen of the agency's recommendations in a draft environmental study, The Charlotte Observer reported.
The final decision on the license is expected next year. The environmental recommendations could be changed or removed before then, said FERC spokeswoman Celeste Miller.
The key sticking point is federal regulators calling for Duke to buy back undeveloped portions of land along the 225-mile shoreline of the Catawba River and enforce a 50-foot buffer along the waterway in North and South Carolina.
Duke officials said that would be too expensive, citing a study by the utility that found buying 100-foot-wide swaths along 800 miles of undeveloped shoreline would cost more than $2 billion.
The shoreline protection proposals are similar to recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has frequently criticized Duke for the level of development along its 11 reservoirs, especially those in the Charlotte area.
"Acquiring remnants of land in key locations and consolidating longer expanses of shoreline would not be terribly expensive if done over time, and done in conjunction with other programs," said Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Mark Cantrell.
Duke said other recommendations by federal regulators would keep the utility from fulfilling some of its promises in a 2006 agreement, including access areas and land deals for local governments.
"We signed the agreement with the understanding that it provided us some certainty and predictability," said Mark Oakley, Duke's licensing manager. "We feel like protecting our benefits and burdens is the best way to protect everybody else."
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.
Key Points
Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.
✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.
✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.
✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.
Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.
Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.
If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.
Common mistakes
Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).
This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.
How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.
Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.
When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned.
For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.
NDC Renewable Energy Ambition drives COP25 calls to align with the Paris Agreement, as IRENA urges 2030 targets toward 7.7 TW, accelerating decarbonization, energy transition, socio-economic benefits, and scalable renewables in Nationally Determined Contributions.
Key Points
Raised 2030 renewable targets in NDCs to meet Paris goals, reaching 7.7 TW efficiently and speeding decarbonization.
✅ Double current NDC renewables to align with 7.7 TW by 2030
✅ Cost effective pathway with jobs, growth, welfare gains
✅ Accelerates decarbonization and energy access per UN goals
We need an oracle to get us out of this debacle. The UN climate group has met for the 25th time. Will anything ever change?
Countries are being urged to significantly raise renewable energy ambition and adopt targets to transform the global energy system in the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), according to a new IRENA report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) that will be released at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) in Madrid.
The report will show that renewable energy ambition within NDCs would have to more than double by 2030 to put the world in line with the Paris Agreement goals, cost-effectively reaching 7.7 terawatts (TW) of globally installed capacity by then. Today’s renewable energy pledges under the NDCs are falling short of this, targeting only 3.2 TW, even as over 30% of global electricity is already generated from renewables.
The reportNDCs in 2020: Advancing Renewables in the Power Sector and Beyondwill be released at IRENA’s official side event on enhancing NDCs and raising ambition on 11 December 2019.It will state that with over 2.3 TW installed renewable capacity today, following a record year for renewables in 2016, almost half of the additional renewable energy capacity foreseen by current NDCs has already been installed.
The analysis will also highlight that delivering on increased renewable energy ambition can be achieved in a cost-effective way and with considerable socio-economic benefits across the world.
“Increasing renewable energy targets is absolutely necessary,” said IRENA’s Director-General Francesco La Camera. “Much more is possible. There is a decisive opportunity for policy makers to step up climate action, including a fossil fuel lockdown, by raising ambition on renewables, which are the only immediate solution to meet rising energy demand whilst decarbonizing the economy and building resilience.
“IRENA’s analysis shows that a pathway to a decarbonised economy is technologically possible and socially and economically beneficial,” continued Mr. La Camera.
“Renewables are good for growth, good for job creation and deliver significant welfare benefits. With renewables, we can also expand energy access and help eradicate energy poverty by ensuring clean, affordable and sustainable electricity for all in line with the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2030.
IRENA will promote knowledge exchange, strengthen partnerships and work with all stakeholders to catalyse action on the ground. We are engaging with countries and regions worldwide, from Ireland's green electricity push to other markets, to facilitate renewable energy projects and raise their ambitions”.
NDCs must become a driving force for an accelerated global energy transformation toward 100% renewable energy globally. The current pledges reflect neither the past decade’s rapid growth nor the ongoing market trends for renewables. Through a higher renewable energy ambition, NDCs could serve to advance multiple climate and development objectives.
Churchill Falls NL-Quebec Agreement boosts hydropower revenues, revises power purchase pricing, expands transmission lines, and integrates Indigenous rights, enabling renewable energy growth, domestic supply, exports, and interprovincial collaboration on infrastructure and utility modernization.
Key Points
A renegotiated hydropower deal reallocating power and advancing projects with Indigenous benefits in NL and Quebec.
✅ Raises Hydro-Quebec price for Churchill Falls electricity
✅ Increases NL power share for domestic use and exports
✅ Commits joint projects and Indigenous participation safeguards
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador - In a historic development, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and Quebec have reached a tentative agreement over the controversial Churchill Falls hydroelectric project, amid Quebec's electricity ambitions and longstanding regional sensitivities, potentially unlocking hundreds of billions of dollars for the Atlantic province. The deal, announced jointly by Premier Andrew Furey and Quebec Premier François Legault, aims to rectify the decades-long imbalance in the original 1969 contract, which saw NL receive significantly less revenue than Quebec for the province's vast hydropower resources.
The core of the new agreement involves a substantial increase in the price that Hydro-Québec pays for electricity generated at Churchill Falls. This price hike, retroactive to January 1, 2025, is expected to generate billions in additional revenue for NL over the next several decades. The deal also includes provisions for:
Increased power allocation for NL: The province will gain a larger share of the electricity generated at Churchill Falls, allowing for increased domestic consumption and potential export opportunities through the sale and trade of power across regional markets.
Joint infrastructure development: Both provinces will collaborate on new energy projects, in line with Hydro-Québec's $185-billion plan to reduce fossil fuel reliance, including potential expansions to the Churchill Falls generating station and the development of new transmission lines.
Indigenous involvement: The agreement acknowledges the importance of Indigenous rights and seeks to ensure that Indigenous communities in both provinces benefit from the project.
This landmark deal represents a significant victory for NL, which has long argued that the original 1969 contract was grossly unfair. The province has been seeking to renegotiate the terms of the agreement for decades, citing the low price paid for electricity and the significant economic benefits that have accrued to Quebec.
Key Implications:
Economic Transformation: The influx of revenue from the new Churchill Falls agreement has the potential to significantly transform the economy of NL, though the legacy of Muskrat Falls costs tempers expectations before plans are finalized. The province can invest in critical infrastructure projects, such as healthcare, education, and transportation, as well as support economic diversification initiatives.
Energy Independence: The increased access to electricity will enhance NL's energy security and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. This shift towards renewable energy aligns with the province's climate change goals, and in the context of Quebec's no-nuclear stance could attract new investment in sustainable industries.
Interprovincial Relations: The successful negotiation of this complex agreement demonstrates the potential for constructive collaboration between provinces on major infrastructure projects, as seen in recent NB Power-Hydro-Québec agreements to import more electricity. It sets a precedent for future interprovincial partnerships on issues of shared interest.
Challenges and Considerations:
Implementation: The successful implementation of the agreement will require careful planning and coordination between the two provinces.
Environmental Impact: The expansion of hydroelectric generation at Churchill Falls must be carefully assessed for its potential environmental impacts, including the effects on local ecosystems and Indigenous communities.
Public Consultation: It is crucial that the governments of NL and Quebec engage in meaningful public consultation throughout the implementation process to ensure that the benefits of the agreement are shared equitably across both provinces.
The Churchill Falls agreement marks a turning point in the history of energy development in Canada. It demonstrates the potential for provinces to work together to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes, even as Nova Scotia shifts toward wind and solar after stepping back from the Atlantic Loop, while also addressing historical inequities and ensuring a more equitable distribution of the benefits of natural resources.
Energy Pricing Factors span electricity generation, transmission, and distribution costs, plus natural gas supply-demand, renewables, seasonal peaks, and wholesale pricing effects across residential, commercial, and industrial customers, usage patterns, weather, and grid constraints.
Key Points
They are the costs and market forces driving electricity and natural gas prices, from generation to delivery and demand.
✅ Generation, transmission, distribution shape electricity rates
✅ Gas prices hinge on supply, storage, imports/exports
✅ Demand shifts: weather, economy, and fuel alternatives
There are a lot of factors that affect energy prices globally. What’s included in the price to heat homes and supply them with electricity may be a lot more than some people may think.
Electricity Generating electricity is the largest component of its price, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Generation accounts for 56% of the price of electricity, while distribution and transmission account for 31% and 13% respectively.
Homeowners and businesses pay more for electricity than industrial companies, and U.S. electricity prices have recently surged, highlighting broader inflationary pressures. This is because industrial companies can take electricity at higher voltages, reducing transmission costs for energy companies.
“Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity,” EIA explains.
NYSEG said based on the average use of 600 kilowatt-hours per month, its customers spent the most money on delivery and transition charges in 2020, 57% or about $42, and residential electricity bills increased 5% in 2022 after inflation, according to national data. They also spent on average 35% (~$26) on supply charges and 8% (~$6) on surcharges.
Electricity prices are usually higher in the summer. Why? Because energy companies use sources of electricity that cost more money. It used to be that renewable sources, like solar and wind, were the most expensive sources of energy but increased technological advances have changed this, according to the International Energy Agency’s 2021 World Energy Outlook.
“In most markets, solar PV or wind now represents the cheapest available source of new electricity generation. Clean energy technology is becoming a major new area for investment and employment – and a dynamic arena for international collaboration and competition,” the report said.
Natural gas The price of natural gas is driven by supply and demand. If there is more supply, prices are generally lower. If there is not as much supply, prices are generally higher the EIA explains. On the other side of the equation, more demand can also increase the price and less demand can decrease the price.
High natural gas prices mean people turn their home thermostats down a few degrees to save money, so the EIA said reduced demand can encourage companies to produce more natural gas, which would in turn help lower the cost. Lower prices will sometimes cause companies to reduce their production, therefore causing the price to rise.
The three major supply factors that affect prices: the amount of natural gas produced, how much is stored, and the volume of gas imported and exported. The three major demand factors that affect price are: changes in winter/summer weather, economic growth, and the broader energy crisis dynamics, as well as how much other fuels are available and their price, said EIA.
To think the price of natural gas is higher when the economy is thriving may sound counterintuitive but that’s exactly what happens. The EIA said this is because of increases in demand.
Enbridge Alberta CCS Project targets carbon capture and storage in Alberta, capturing emissions from industrial emitters to advance net-zero goals, leveraging carbon pricing, regulatory support, and a hub model despite a key partner's exit.
Key Points
A proposed Alberta carbon capture hub by Enbridge to store industrial emissions and support net-zero targets.
✅ Seeks emitters across power, oil and gas, and heavy industry
✅ Backed by carbon pricing, regulation, and net-zero mandates
✅ Faces high capex, storage risk, and anchor-tenant uncertainty
Enbridge Inc., a Canadian energy giant, is digging its heels in on its proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in Alberta. This comes despite the recent withdrawal of Capital Power, a major potential emitter that was expected to utilize the CCS technology. Enbridge maintains the project remains viable, but questions linger about its future viability without a cornerstone anchor.
The CCS project, envisioned as a major carbon capture hub in Alberta, aimed to capture emissions from industrial facilities and permanently store them underground. This technology has the potential to play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change, alongside grid solutions like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that can complement decarbonization efforts.
Capital Power's decision to shelve its $2.4 billion Genesee Generating Station project, which was designed to integrate with the CCS hub, threw a wrench into Enbridge's plans. The Genesee project was expected to be a key source of emissions for capture and storage, and its status is being weighed as Ottawa advances the federal coal plan to phase out unabated coal.
Enbridge, however, remains optimistic. The company cites ongoing discussions with other potential emitters interested in utilizing the CCS technology, amid new funding signals such as the U.S. DOE's $110M for CCUS that highlight momentum. They believe the project holds significant value despite Capital Power's departure.
"We are confident in the long-term viability of the project and continue to actively engage with potential customers," said Enbridge spokesperson Rachel Giroux. "Carbon capture and storage is a critical technology for achieving net-zero emissions, and we believe there is a strong business case for our CCS project."
Enbridge's confidence hinges on several factors. Firstly, they believe there is a growing appetite for CCS technology amongst industrial facilities facing increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprint. Regulations and carbon pricing mechanisms, including new U.S. EPA power plant rules that test CCS readiness, could further incentivize companies to adopt CCS solutions.
Secondly, Enbridge highlights the potential for capturing emissions from not just power plants but also from other industrial sectors like oil and gas production and clean hydrogen projects in Canada, where reforming processes can generate CO2. This broader application could significantly increase the captured carbon volume and strengthen the project's economic viability.
However, skepticism remains. Critics point to the high upfront costs associated with CCS development and the nascent stage of the technology. They argue that without a guaranteed stream of captured emissions, the project might not be financially sound. Additionally, the long-term safety and effectiveness of large-scale carbon storage solutions remain under scrutiny.
The success of Enbridge's CCS project hinges on attracting new emitters. Replacing Capital Power's contribution will be a significant challenge. Enbridge will need to demonstrate the project's economic viability and navigate the complex regulatory landscape surrounding CCS technology.
The Alberta government's position on CCS is crucial. While the government has expressed support for the technology, the level of financial and regulatory incentives offered will significantly impact investor confidence, especially as the IEA net-zero outlook underscores Canada's need for much more electricity. A clear and stable policy framework will be essential for attracting emitters to the project.
The future of Enbridge's CCS project remains uncertain. Capital Power's withdrawal is a setback, but Enbridge's continued commitment suggests they believe the technology holds promise. Whether they can find enough emitters to justify the project's development will be a critical test. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of CCS technology in Alberta and Canada's broader efforts to achieve net-zero emissions, including Canada-Germany clean energy cooperation that seeks to scale low-carbon fuels.
