NPPD assessing damage to transmission lines, structures

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada AI Data Center Grid Integration aligns AI demand with renewable energy, energy storage, and grid reliability. It emphasizes transmission upgrades, liquid cooling efficiency, and policy incentives to balance economic growth with sustainable power.

Key Points

Linking AI data centers to Canada's grid with renewables, storage, and efficiency to ensure reliable, sustainable power.

✅ Diversify supply with wind, solar, hydro, and firm low-carbon resources

✅ Deploy grid-scale batteries to balance peaks and enhance reliability

✅ Upgrade transmission, distribution, and adopt liquid cooling efficiency

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors, driving demand for data centers that support AI applications. In Canada, this surge in data center development presents both economic opportunities and challenges for the electricity grid, where utilities using AI to adapt to evolving demand dynamics. Integrating AI-focused data centers into Canada's electricity infrastructure requires strategic planning to balance economic growth with sustainable energy practices.​

Economic and Technological Incentives

Canada has been at the forefront of AI research for over three decades, establishing itself as a global leader in the field. The federal government has invested significantly in AI initiatives, with over $2 billion allocated in 2024 to maintain Canada's competitive edge and to align with a net-zero grid by 2050 target nationwide. Provincial governments are also actively courting data center investments, recognizing the economic and technological benefits these facilities bring. Data centers not only create jobs and stimulate local economies but also enhance technological infrastructure, supporting advancements in AI and related fields.​

Challenges to the Electricity Grid

However, the energy demands of AI data centers pose significant challenges to Canada's electricity grid, mirroring the power challenge for utilities seen in the U.S., as demand rises. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has raised concerns about the growing electricity consumption driven by AI, noting that the current power generation capacity may struggle to meet this increasing demand, while grids are increasingly exposed to harsh weather conditions that threaten reliability as well. This situation could lead to reliability issues, including potential blackouts during peak demand periods, jeopardizing both economic activities and the progress of AI initiatives.​

Strategic Integration Approaches

To effectively integrate AI data centers into Canada's electricity grids, a multifaceted approach is essential:

1. Diversifying Energy Sources: Relying solely on traditional energy sources may not suffice to meet the heightened demands of AI data centers. Incorporating renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, can provide sustainable alternatives. For instance, Alberta has emerged as a proactive player in supporting AI-enabled data centers, with the TransAlta data centre agreement expected to advance this momentum, leveraging its renewable energy potential to attract such investments.
    

2. Implementing Energy Storage Solutions: Integrating large-scale battery storage systems can help manage the intermittent nature of renewable energy. These systems store excess energy generated during low-demand periods, releasing it during peak times to stabilize the grid. In some communities, AI-driven grid upgrades complement storage deployments to optimize operations, which supports data center needs and community reliability.
    

3. Enhancing Grid Infrastructure: Upgrading transmission and distribution networks is crucial to handle the increased load from AI data centers. Strategic investments in grid infrastructure can prevent bottlenecks and ensure efficient energy delivery, including exploration of macrogrids in Canada to improve regional transfers, supporting both existing and new data center operations.​
    

4. Adopting Energy-Efficient Data Center Designs: Designing data centers with energy efficiency in mind can significantly reduce their power consumption. Innovations such as liquid cooling systems are being explored to manage the heat generated by high-density AI workloads, offering more efficient alternatives to traditional air cooling methods.

5. Establishing Collaborative Policies: Collaboration among government entities, utility providers, and data center operators is vital to align energy policies with technological advancements. Developing regulatory frameworks that incentivize sustainable practices can guide the growth of AI data centers in harmony with grid capabilities.​
    

Integrating AI data centers into Canada's electricity grids presents both significant opportunities and challenges. By adopting a comprehensive strategy that includes diversifying energy sources, implementing advanced energy storage, enhancing grid infrastructure, promoting energy-efficient designs, and fostering collaborative policies, Canada can harness the benefits of AI while ensuring a reliable and sustainable energy future. This balanced approach will position Canada as a leader in both AI innovation and sustainable energy practices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Global Coal Power Decline 2019 signals a record fall in coal-fired electricity as China plateaus, India dips, and the EU and US accelerate renewables, curbing carbon emissions and advancing the global energy transition.

Key Points

A record 2019 drop in global coal power as renewables rise and demand slows across China, India, the EU, and the US.

✅ 3% global fall in coal-fired electricity in 2019.

✅ China plateaus; India declines for first time in decades.

✅ EU and US shift to renewables and gas, cutting emissions.

The world’s use of coal-fired electricity is on track for its biggest annual fall on record this year after more than four decades of near-uninterrupted growth that has stoked the global climate crisis.

Data shows that coal-fired electricity is expected to fall by 3% in 2019, or more than the combined coal generation in Germany, Spain and the UK last year and could help stall the world’s rising carbon emissions this year.

The steepest global slump on record is likely to emerge in 2019 as India’s reliance on coal power falls for the first time in at least three decades this year, and China’s coal power demand plateaus, reflecting the broader global energy transition underway.

Both developing nations are using less coal-fired electricity due to slowing economic growth in Asia as well as the rise of cleaner energy alternatives. There is also expected to be unprecedented coal declines across the EU and the US as developed economies turn to clean forms of energy such as low-cost solar power to replace ageing coal plants.

In almost 40 years the world’s annual coal generation has fallen only twice before: in 2009, in the wake of the global financial crisis, and in 2015, following a slowdown in China’s coal plants amid rising levels of deadly air pollution.

The research was undertaken by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air , the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and the UK climate thinktank Sandbag.

The researchers found that China’s coal-fired power generation was flatlining, despite an increase in the number of coal plants being built, because they were running at record low rates. China builds the equivalent of one large new coal plant every two weeks, according to the report, but its coal plants run for only 48.6% of the time, compared with a global utilisation rate of 54% on average.

The findings come after a report from Global Energy Monitor found that the number of coal-fired power plants in the world is growing, because China is building new coal plants five times faster than the rest of the world is reducing their coal-fired power capacity.

The report found that in other countries coal-fired power capacity fell by 8GW in the 18 months to June but over the same period China increased its capacity by 42.9GW.

In a paper for the industry journal Carbon Brief, the researchers said: “A 3% reduction in power sector coal use could imply zero growth in global CO2 emissions, if emissions changes in other sectors mirror those during 2018.”

However, the authors of the report have warned that despite the record coal power slump the world’s use of coal remained far too high to meet the climate goals of the Paris agreement, and some countries are still seeing increases, such as Australia’s emissions rise amid increased pollution from electricity and transport.

The US – which is backing out of the Paris agreement – has made the deepest cuts to coal power of any developed country this year by shutting coal plants down in favour of gas power and renewable energy, with utilities such as Duke Energy facing investor pressure to disclose climate plans. By the end of August the US had reduced coal by almost 14% over the year compared with the same months in 2018.

The EU reported a record slump in coal-fired electricity use in the first half of the year of almost a fifth compared with the same months last year. This trend is expected to accelerate over the second half of the year to average a 23% fall over 2019 as a whole. The EU is using less coal power in favour of gas-fired electricity – which can have roughly half the carbon footprint of coal – and renewable energy, helped by policies such as the UK carbon tax that have slashed coal-fired generation.

We will not stay quiet on the escalating climate crisis and we recognise it as the defining issue of our lifetimes. The Guardian will give global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution the urgent attention they demand. Our independence means we can interrogate inaction by those in power. It means Guardian reporting will always be driven by scientific facts, never by commercial or political interests.

We believe that the problems we face on the climate crisis are systemic and that fundamental societal change is needed. We will keep reporting on the efforts of individuals and communities around the world who are fearlessly taking a stand for future generations and the preservation of human life on earth. We want their stories to inspire hope. We will also report back on our own progress as an organisation, as we take important steps to address our impact on the environment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Quebec Churchill Falls power deal renewal spotlights Hydro-Que9bec's Labrador hydroelectricity, Churchill River contract extension, Gull Island prospects, and Innu Nation rights, as demand from EV battery manufacturing and the green economy outpaces provincial supply.

Key Points

Extending Quebec's low-price Churchill Falls contract to secure Labrador hydro and address Innu Nation rights.

✅ 1969 contract delivers ~30 TWh at very low fixed price.

✅ Newfoundland seeks higher rates, equity, and consultation.

✅ Innu Nation demands benefits, consent, and land remediation.

As Quebec prepares to ramp up electricity production to meet its ambitious economic goals, the government is trying to extend a power deal that has caused decades of resentment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Around 15 per cent of Quebec's electricity comes from the Churchill Falls dam in Labrador, through a deal set to expire in 2041 that is widely seen as unfair. Quebec Premier François Legault not only wants to extend the agreement, he wants another dam on the Churchill River and, for now, has closed the door on nuclear power as an option to help make his province what he has called a "world leader for the green economy."

But renewing that contract "won't be easy," Normand Mousseau, scientific director of the Trottier Energy Institute at Polytechnique Montréal, said in a recent interview. Extending the Churchill Falls deal is not essential to meet Quebec's energy plans, but without it, Mousseau said, "we would have some problems."

The Legault government is enticing global companies, such as manufacturers of electric vehicle batteries, to set up shop in the province and access its hydroelectricity. But demand for Quebec's power has exceeded its supply, and Ontario has chosen not to renew a power-purchase deal with Quebec, limiting the government's vision.

Last month, Quebec's hydro utility released its strategic plan calling for a production increase of 60 terawatt hours by 2035, which represents the installed capacity of three of Hydro-Québec's largest facilities. Churchill Falls produces roughly 30 terawatt hours, and Quebec would need to replace that power if it can't strike a deal to extend the contract, Mousseau said.

If Quebec wants to keep buying power from Churchill Falls, the government is going to have to pay more, said Mousseau, who is also a physics professor at Université de Montréal. "We're paying one-fifth of a cent a kilowatt hour — that's not much," he said.

Under the 1969 contract, Quebec assumed most of the financial risk of building the Churchill Falls dam in exchange for the right to buy power at a fixed price. The deal has generated more than $28 billion for Hydro-Québec; it has returned $2 billion to Newfoundland and Labrador.

That lopsided deal has stoked anti-Quebec sentiment in Newfoundland and Labrador and contributed to nationalist politics, including threats of separation from Canada around a decade and a half ago, when Danny Williams was premier, said Jerry Bannister, a history professor at Dalhousie University.

"We tend to forget what it was like during the Williams era — he hauled down the Canadian flag," Bannister said. "There was a type of angry, combative nationalism which defined energy development. And particularly Muskrat Falls, it was payback, it was revenge."

Power from the Muskrat Falls generating station, also on the Churchill River, would be sold to Nova Scotia instead of Quebec. But that project has suffered technical problems and cost overruns since, and as of June 29, the price of Muskrat Falls had reached $13.5 billion; the province had estimated the total cost would be $7.4 billion when it sanctioned the project in 2012.

Anti-Quebec feelings may have subsided, but Bannister said the Churchill Falls deal continues to influence Newfoundland politics.

In September, Premier Andrew Furey said Legault would have to show him the money(opens in a new tab) to extend th Legault's office said Tuesday that discussions are ongoing, while the Newfoundland and Labrador government said in an emailed statement Thursday that it wants to maximize the value of its "assets and future opportunities" along the Churchill River.

Whatever negotiations are happening, Grand Chief Simon Pokue of the Innu Nation of Labrador(opens in a new tab) said he has been left out of them.

Churchill Falls flooded 6,500 square kilometres of traditional Innu land, Pokue said, adding that in response, the Innu Nation filed a $4 billion lawsuit against Hydro-Québec in 2020, which is ongoing.

"A lot of damage has been done to our lands, our land is flooded and we'll never see it again," Pokue said in a recent interview. "Nobody will ever repair that."

As well, a portion of Muskrat Falls profits was supposed to go to the Innu Nation, but the cost overruns and a refinancing deal between the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador have limited whatever money they will see.

If Legault wants another dam on the Churchill River, at Gull Island, the Innu Nation needs to be paid the kind of money it was expecting from Muskrat Falls, he said.

"You did it once, but you're not going to do it again," Pokue said. "It's not going to start until we are consulted and involved."

Meanwhile, Quebec may face competition for Churchill Falls power, Mousseau said, with at least one Labrador mining company expressing interest in buying a significant portion of its output — though he added that the dam's capacity could be increased. The low price paid by Quebec has meant there has been little incentive to upgrade the plant's turbines.

As demand for electricity rises across the country, Mousseau said he thinks it would be better for provinces to work together, sharing expertise and costs, for example through NB Power deals to import more Quebec electricity as they look across provincial borders to find the best locations for projects, rather than acting as rivals.

"We need to talk and work with other provinces, and some propose an independent planning body to guide this, but for this you need to build confidence, and there's no confidence from the Newfoundland side with respect to Quebec," he said. "So that's a challenge: how do you work on this relationship that has been broken for 50 years?"e contract, but the two premiers have said little since.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News