Kentucky PSC looking for more reliability data

California Net Zero Grid Investment will fuel electrification, renewable energy buildout, EV adoption, and grid modernization, boosting utilities, solar, and storage, while policy, IRA incentives, and transmission upgrades drive reliability and long-term rate base growth.

Key Points

Funding to electrify sectors and modernize the grid, scaling renewables, EVs, and storage to meet 2045 net zero goals.

✅ $370B over 22 years to meet 2045 net zero target

✅ Utilities lead gains via grid modernization and rate base growth

✅ EVs, solar, storage scale; IRA credits offset costs

$370 billion: That’s the investment Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro says is needed for California’s power grid to meet the state’s “net zero” goal for CO2 emissions by 2045.

Getting there will require replacing fossil fuels with electricity in transportation, HVAC systems for buildings and industrial processes. Combined with population growth and data demand potentially augmented by artificial intelligence, that adds up to an 82 percent increase in electricity demand over 22 years, or 3 percent annually, and a potential looming shortage if buildout lags.

California’s plans also call for phasing out fossil fuel generation in the state, despite ongoing dependence on fossil power during peaks. And presumably, its last nuclear plant—PG&E Corp’s (PCG) Diablo Canyon—will be eventually be shuttered as well. So getting there also means trebling the state’s renewable energy generation and doubling usage of rooftop solar.

Assuming this investment is made, it’s relatively easy to put together a list of beneficiaries. Electric vehicles hit 20 percent market share in the state in Q2, even as pandemic-era demand shifts complicate load forecasting. And while competition from manufacturers has increased, leading manufacturers like Tesla TSLA -3% Inc (TSLA) can look forward to rising sales for some time—though that’s more than priced in for Elon Musk’s company at 65 times expected next 12 months earnings.

In the past year, California regulators have dialed back net metering through pricing changes affecting compensation, a subsidy previously paying rooftop solar owners premium prices for power sold back to the grid. That’s hit share prices of SunPower Corp (SPWR) and Sunrun Inc (RUN) quite hard, by further undermining business plans yet to demonstrate consistent profitability.

Nonetheless, these companies too can expect robust sales growth, as global prices for solar components drop and Inflation Reduction Act tax credits at least somewhat offset higher interest rates. And the combination of IRA tax credits and U.S. tariff walls will continue to boost sales at solar manufacturers like JinkoSolar Holding (JKS).

The surest, biggest beneficiaries of California’s drive to Net Zero are the utilities, reflecting broader utility trends in grid modernization, with investment increasing earnings and dividends. And as the state’s largest pure electric company, Edison has the clearest path.

Edison is currently requesting California regulators OK recovery over a 30-year period of $2.4 billion in losses related to 2017 wildfires. Assuming a amicable decision by early next year, management can then turn its attention to upgrading the grid. That investment is expected to generate long-term rate base growth of 8 percent at year, fueling 5 to 7 percent annual earnings growth through 2028 with commensurate dividend increases.

That’s a strong value proposition Edison stock, with trades at just 14 times expected next 12 months earnings. The yield of roughly 4.4 percent at current prices was increased 5.4 percent this year and is headed for a similar boost in December.

When California deregulated electricity in 1996, it required utilities with rare exceptions to divest their power generation. As a result, Edison’s growth opportunity is 100 percent upgrading its transmission and distribution grid. And its projects can typically be proposed, sited, permitted and built in less than a year, limiting risk of cost overruns to ensure regulatory approval and strong investment returns.

Edison’s investment plan is also pretty much immune to an unlikely backtracking on Net Zero goals by the state. And the company has a cost argument as well: Dr Pizarro cites U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Transportation data to project inflation-adjusted savings of 40 percent in California’s total customer energy bills from full electrification.

There’s even a reason to believe 40 percent savings will prove conservative. Mainly, gasoline currently accounts for a bit more than half energy expenditures. And after a more than 10-year global oil and gas investment drought, supplies are likely get tighter and prices possibly much higher in coming years.

Of course, those savings will only show up after significant investment is made. At this point, no major utility system in the world runs on 100 percent renewable energy, and California’s blackout politics underscore how reliability concerns shape deployment. And the magnitude of storage technology needed to overcome intermittency in solar and wind generation is not currently available let alone affordable, though both cost and efficiency are advancing.

Taking EVs from 20 to 100 percent of California’s new vehicle sales calls for a similar leap in efficiency and cost, even with generous federal and state subsidy. And while technology to fully electrify buildings and homes is there, economically retrofitting statewide is almost certainly going to be a slog.

At the end of the day, political will is likely to be as important as future technological advance for how much of Pizarro’s $370 billion actually gets spent. And the same will be true across the U.S., with state governments and regulators still by and large calling the shots for how electricity gets generated, transmitted and distributed—as well as who pays for it and how much, even as California’s exported policies influence Western markets.

Ironically, the one state where investors don’t need to worry about renewable energy’s prospects is one of the currently reddest politically. That’s Florida, where NextEra Energy NEE +2.8% (NEE) and other utilities can dramatically cut costs to customers and boost reliability by deploying solar and energy storage.

You won’t hear management asserting it can run the Sunshine State on 100 percent renewable energy, as utilities and regulators do in some of the bluer parts of the country. But by demonstrating the cost and reliability argument for solar deployment, NextEra is also making the case why its stock is America’s highest percentage bet on renewables’ growth—particularly at a time when all things energy are unfortunately becoming increasingly, intensely political.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CO2 Removal Technologies address climate change via negative emissions, including carbon capture, reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, and mineralization, helping meet Paris Agreement targets while managing costs, land use, and infrastructure demands.

Key Points

Methods to extract or sequester atmospheric CO2, combining natural and engineered approaches to limit warming.

✅ Includes reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, mineralization

✅ Balances climate goals with costs, land, energy, and infrastructure

✅ Key to Paris Agreement targets under 1.5-2.0 °C warming

The world is, on average, 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer today than it was in 1850. If this trend continues, our planet will be 2 – 3 degrees hotter by the end of this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The main reason for this temperature rise is higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which cause the atmosphere to trap heat radiating from the Earth into space. Since 1850, the proportion of CO2 in the air has increased, with record greenhouse gas concentrations documented, from 0.029% to 0.041% (288 ppm to 414 ppm).

This is directly related to the burning of coal, oil and gas, which were created from forests, plankton and plants over millions of years. Back then, they stored CO2 and kept it out of the atmosphere, but as fossil fuels are burned, that CO2 is released. Other contributing factors include industrialized agriculture and slash-and-burn land clearing techniques, and emissions from SF6 in electrical equipment are also concerning today.

Over the past 50 years, more than 1200 billion tons of CO2 have been emitted into the planet's atmosphere — 36.6 billion tons in 2018 alone, though global emissions flatlined in 2019 before rising again. As a result, the global average temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees in just half a century.

Atmospheric CO2 should remain at a minimum
In 2015, the world came together to sign the Paris Climate Agreement which set the goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees — 1.5 degrees, if possible.

The agreement limits the amount of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere, providing a benchmark for the global energy transition now underway. According to the IPCC, if a maximum of around 300 billion tons were emitted, there would be a 50% chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. If CO2 emissions remain the same, however, the CO2 'budget' would be used up in just seven years.

According to the IPCC's report on the 1.5 degree target, negative emissions are also necessary to achieve the climate targets.

Using reforestation to remove CO2
One planned measure to stop too much CO2 from being released into the atmosphere is reforestation. According to studies, 3.6 billion tons of CO2 — around 10% of current CO2 emissions — could be saved every year during the growth phase. However, a study by researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, stresses that achieving this would require the use of land areas equivalent in size to the entire US.

Young trees at a reforestation project in Africa (picture-alliance/OKAPIA KG, Germany)
Reforestation has potential to tackle the climate crisis by capturing CO2. But it would require a large amount of space

More humus in the soil
Humus in the soil stores a lot of carbon. But this is being released through the industrialization of agriculture. The amount of humus in the soil can be increased by using catch crops and plants with deep roots as well as by working harvest remnants back into the ground and avoiding deep plowing. According to a study by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) on using targeted CO2 extraction as a part of EU climate policy, between two and five billion tons of CO2 could be saved with a global build-up of humus reserves.

Biochar shows promise
Some scientists see biochar as a promising technology for keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. Biochar is created when organic material is heated and pressurized in a zero or very low-oxygen environment. In powdered form, the biochar is then spread on arable land where it acts as a fertilizer. This also increases the amount of carbon content in the soil. According to the same study from the SWP, global application of this technology could save between 0.5 and two billion tons of CO2 every year.

Storing CO2 in the ground
Storing CO2 deep in the Earth is already well-known and practiced on Norway's oil fields, for example. However, the process is still controversial, as storing CO2 underground can lead to earthquakes and leakage in the long-term. A different method is currently being practiced in Iceland, in which CO2 is sequestered into porous basalt rock to be mineralized into stone. Both methods still require more research, however, with new DOE funding supporting carbon capture, utilization, and storage.

Capturing CO2 to be held underground is done by using chemical processes which effectively extract the gas from the ambient air, and some researchers are exploring CO2-to-electricity concepts for utilization. This method is known as direct air capture (DAC) and is already practiced in other parts of Europe.  As there is no limit to the amount of CO2 that can be captured, it is considered to have great potential. However, the main disadvantage is the cost — currently around €550 ($650) per ton. Some scientists believe that mass production of DAC systems could bring prices down to €50 per ton by 2050. It is already considered a key technology for future climate protection.

The inside of a carbon capture facility in the Netherlands (RWE AG)
Carbon capture facilities are still very expensive and take up a huge amount of space

Another way of extracting CO2 from the air is via biomass. Plants grow and are burned in a power plant to produce electricity. CO2 is then extracted from the exhaust gas of the power plant and stored deep in the Earth, with new U.S. power plant rules poised to test such carbon capture approaches.

The big problem with this technology, known as bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the huge amount of space required. According to Felix Creutzig from the Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) in Berlin, it will therefore only play "a minor role" in CO2 removal technologies.

CO2 bound by rock minerals
In this process, carbonate and silicate rocks are mined, ground and scattered on agricultural land or on the surface water of the ocean, where they collect CO2 over a period of years. According to researchers, by the middle of this century it would be possible to capture two to four billion tons of CO2 every year using this technique. The main challenges are primarily the quantities of stone required, and building the necessary infrastructure. Concrete plans have not yet been researched.

Not an option: Fertilizing the sea with iron
The idea is use iron to fertilize the ocean, thereby increasing its nuturient content, which would allow plankton to grow stronger and capture more CO2. However, both the process and possible side effects are very controversial. "This is rarely treated as a serious option in research," concludes SWP study authors Oliver Geden and Felix Schenuit.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out drives policy amid gas supply risks, Nord Stream 1 shutdown fears, Russia dependency, and energy security planning, as Robert Habeck rejects extending reactors, favoring coal backup, storage, and EU diversification strategies.

Key Points

Ending Germany's last reactors by year end despite gas risks, prioritizing storage, coal backup, and EU diversification.

✅ Reactors' legal certification expires at year end

✅ Minimal gas savings from extending nuclear capacity

✅ Nord Stream 1 cuts amplify energy security risks

Germany’s vice-chancellor has defended the government’s commitment to ending the use of nuclear power at the end of this year, amid fears that Russia may halt natural gas supplies entirely.

Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, who is also the economy and climate minister and is responsible for energy, argued that keeping the few remaining reactors running would do little to address the problems caused by a possible natural gas shortfall.

“Nuclear power doesn’t help us there at all,” Habeck, said at a news conference in Vienna on Tuesday. “We have a heating problem or an industry problem, but not an electricity problem – at least not generally throughout the country.”

The main gas pipeline from Russia to Germany shut down for annual maintenance on Monday, as Berlin grew concerned that Moscow may not resume the flow of gas as scheduled.

The Nord Stream 1 pipeline, Germany’s main source of Russian gas, is scheduled to be out of action until July 21 for routine work that the operator says includes “testing of mechanical elements and automation systems”.

But German officials are suspicious of Russia’s intentions, particularly after Russia’s Gazprom last month reduced the gas flow through Nord Stream 1 by 60 percent.

Gazprom cited technical problems involving a gas turbine powering a compressor station that partner Siemens Energy sent to Canada for overhaul.

Germany’s main opposition party has called repeatedly to extend nuclear power by keeping the country’s last three nuclear reactors online after the end of December. There is some sympathy for that position in the ranks of the pro-business Free Democrats, the smallest party in Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s governing coalition.

In this year’s first quarter, nuclear energy accounted for 6 percent of Germany’s electricity generation and natural gas for 13 percent, both significantly lower than a year earlier. Germany has been getting about 35 percent of its gas from Russia.

Habeck said the legal certification for the remaining reactors expires at the end of the year and they would have to be treated thereafter as effectively new nuclear plants, complete with safety considerations and the likely “very small advantage” in terms of saving gas would not outweigh the complications.

Fuel for the reactors also would have to be procured and Scholz has said that the fuel rods are generally imported from Russia.

Opposition politicians have argued that Habeck’s environmentalist Green party, which has long strongly supported the nuclear phase-out, is opposing keeping reactors online for ideological reasons, even as some float a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout in response to the energy crisis.

Reducing dependency on Russia
Germany and the rest of Europe are scrambling to fill the gas storage in time for the northern hemisphere winter, even as Europe is losing nuclear power at a critical moment and reduce their dependence on Russian energy imports.

Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had said it considered nuclear energy dangerous and in January objected to European Union proposals that would let the technology remain part of the bloc’s plans for a climate-friendly future that includes a nuclear option for climate change pathway.

“We consider nuclear technology to be dangerous,” government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit told reporters in Berlin, noting that the question of what to do with radioactive waste that will last for thousands of generations remains unresolved.

While neighbouring France aimed to modernise existing reactors, Germany stayed on course to switch off its remaining three nuclear power plants at the end of this year and phase out coal by 2030.

Last month, Germany’s economy minister said the country would limit the use of natural gas for electricity production and make a temporary recourse to coal generation to conserve gas.

“It’s bitter but indispensable for reducing gas consumption,” Robert Habeck said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Georgia Cities Clean Energy IRP Coalition unites Savannah, Atlanta, Decatur, and Athens-Clarke to shape Georgia Power's Integrated Resource Plan, accelerating renewables, energy efficiency, community solar, and coal retirements through Georgia Public Service Commission hearings.

Key Points

Georgia cities working to steer Georgia Power's IRP toward renewables, energy efficiency, and community solar.

✅ Targets coal retirements and doubling renewables by 2035

✅ Advocates data access, transparency, and energy efficiency

✅ Seeks affordable community solar options for low-income customers

Savannah is among several Georgia cities that have led the charge forward in recent years to push for clean energy. Now, several of the state's largest municipalities are banding together to demand action from Georgia's largest energy provider.

Hearings regarding Georgia Power's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) happen every three years, but this year for the first time the cities of Savannah, Decatur, Atlanta and Athens-Clarke and DeKalb counties were at the table.

"It's pretty unprecedented. It's such an important opportunity to get to represent ourselves and our citizens," said City of Savannah Energy Analyst Alicia Brown, the Savannah representative for the Georgia Coalition for Local Governments.

The IRP, which essentially maps out how the company will use its various forms of energy over the next 20 years was filed with the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) in January, the 200-page IRP outlines Georgia Power's plans to shutter nearly all Georgia Power-controlled coal units, similar to Tucson Electric Power's coal exit timelines elsewhere, which could begin later this year.

The company is also planning to double its renewable energy generation by 2035. The IRP also outlines plans for several programs, including an Income-Qualified Community Solar Pilot, reflecting momentum for community energy programs in other states as well.

During the hearings the coalition, alongside the other groups, had the ability to question Georgia Power officials about the plan to include the proposed increase per kilowatt for the company's Simple Solar program, Behind-the-Meter Solar program study and various other components, amid debates over solar strategy in the South that could impact lower income customers.

"The established and open IRP process is central to effective, long-term energy planning in Georgia and is part of our commitment to 2.7 million customers to deliver clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy. In continuing our longstanding relationship with the City of Savannah, we welcome their interest and participation in the IRP process," John Kraft, Georgia Power spokesman said in an email.

Brown said the coalition's areas of interest fall into three categories: energy efficiency and demand response, data access and transparency and renewable energy for citizens as well as the governments in the coalition.

"We have these renewable goals and just the way the current regulations are set, the way the current laws are on the books, and developments like consumer choice in California show how policy shifts can reshape utility markets, it's very challenging for us to meet those renewable energy goals without Georgia Power setting up programs that are workable for us," she said.

The city of Savannah is already taking action locally to reduce carbon emissions and move toward clean and renewable energy through the 100% Savannah Clean Energy Plan, which was adopted by Savannah City Council in December.

The plan aims to achieve 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for all energy needs by 2050.

Council previously approved the 100% Clean Energy Resolution needed to develop the plan in March 2020, making Savannah the fifth city in the state to pledge to pursue a lower carbon future to fight climate change.

The final plan includes 45 strategies that fall into five categories: energy efficiency; renewable energy; transportation and mobility; community and economic development; and education and engagement.

Brown said the education and engagement component is central to the plan, but the pandemic has hindered community education and awareness efforts, and utilities have warned customers about pandemic-related scams that complicate outreach, something the city hopes to catapult in the coming weeks.

"With the 100% Savannah resolution passing right before the pandemic, we haven't had as many opportunities to raise awareness about the initiative and to educate the public about clean energy as we would like. This transition will present a lot of opportunities for our communities, but only if people know that they are there to be taken," she said.

"... We also want to engage the community so that they feel like they are developing this vision for a healthy, prosperous, clean community alongside us. It's not just us telling them, 'we're going to have a clean energy future and it's going to look like this,' but really helping them to develop and realize a collective vision for what 100% Savannah should be."

The final round of IRP hearings are scheduled for next month. Those hearings will allow the coalition and other groups to put witnesses on the stand who will make the case for why Georgia Power's IRP should be different, Brown said.

In June, Georgia Power, following a June bill reduction for customers, will have a chance to offer rebuttal testimony and will again be subject to cross examination. Shortly after those hearings, the parties will join together for the settlement process, a sort of compromise on the plan that the commission will vote on toward the beginning of July.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Renewable Energy Market is accelerating as wind and solar prices fall, corporate PPAs expand, and a deregulated, energy-only system, AESO outlooks, and TIER policy drive investment across the province.

Key Points

An open, energy-only Alberta market where wind and solar growth is driven by corporate PPAs, AESO outlooks, and TIER.

✅ Energy-only, deregulated grid enables private investment

✅ Corporate PPAs lower costs and hedge power price risk

✅ AESO forecasts and TIER policy support renewables

By Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald

A few things are abundantly clear about the state of renewable energy in Alberta today.

First, the demise of Alberta’s Renewable Electricity Program (REP) under the UCP government isn’t going to see new projects come to a screeching halt.

In fact, new developments are already going ahead.

And industry experts believe private-sector companies that increasingly want to purchase wind or solar power are going to become a driving force behind even more projects in Alberta.

BluEarth Renewables CEO Grant Arnold, who spoke Wednesday at the Canadian Wind Energy Association conference, pointed out the sector is poised to keep building in the province, even with the end of the REP program that helped kick-start projects and triggered low power prices.

“The fundamentals here are, I think, quite fantastic — strong resource, which leads to really competitive wind prices . . . it’s now the cheapest form of new energy in the province,” he told the audience.

“Alberta is in a fundamentally good place to grow the wind power market.”

Unlike other provinces, Alberta has an open, deregulated marketplace, which create opportunities for private-sector investment and renewable power developers as well.

The recent decision by the Kenney government to stick with the energy-only market, instead of shifting to a capacity market, is seen as positive for Alberta's energy future by renewable electricity developers.

There is also increasing interest from corporations to buy wind and solar power from generators — a trend that has taken off in the United States with players such as Google, General Motors and Amazon — and that push is now emerging in Canada.

“It’s been really important in the U.S. for unlocking a lot of renewable energy development,” said Sara Hastings-Simon, founding director of the Business Renewable Centre Canada, which seeks to help corporate buyers source renewable energy directly from project developers.

“You have some companies where . . . it’s what their investors and customers are demanding. I think we will see in Alberta customers who see this as a good way to meet their carbon compliance requirements.

“And the third motivation to do it is you can get the power at a good price.”

Just last month, Perimeter Solar signed an agreement with TC Energy to supply the Calgary-based firm with 74 megawatts from its solar project near Claresholm.

More deals in the industry are being discussed, and it’s expected this shift will drive other projects forward.

There is increasing interest from corporations to buy solar and wind energy directly from generators.

“The single-biggest change has been the price of wind and solar,” Arnold said in an interview.

“Alberta looks really, really bright right now because we have an open market. All other provinces, for regulatory reasons, we can’t have this (deal) . . . between a generator and a corporate buyer of power. So Alberta has a great advantage there.”

These forces are emerging as the renewable energy industry has seen dramatic change in recent years in Alberta, with costs dropping and an array of wind and solar developments moving ahead, even as solar expansion faces challenges in the province.

The former NDP government had an aggressive target to see green energy sources make up 30 per cent of all electricity generation by 2030.

Last week, the Alberta Electric System Operator put out its long-term outlook, with its base-case scenario projecting moderate demand growth for power over the next two decades. However, the expected load growth — expanding by an average of 0.9 per cent annually until 2039 — is only half the rate seen in the past 20 years.

Natural gas will become the main generation source in the province as coal-fired power (now comprising more than one-third of generation) is phased out.

Renewable projects initiated under the former NDP government’s REP program will come online in the near term, while “additional unsubsidized renewable generation is expected to develop through competitive market mechanisms and support from corporate power purchase agreements,” the report states.

AESO forecasts installed generation capacity for renewables will almost double to about 19 per cent by 2030, with wind and solar increasing to 21 per cent by 2039.

Another key policy issue for the sector will likely come within the next few weeks when the provincial government introduces details of its new Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction program (TIER).

The initiative will require large industrial emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a benchmark level, pay into the technology fund, or buy offsets or credits. The carbon price is expected to be around $20 to $30 a tonne, and the system will kick in on Jan. 1, 2020.

Industry players point out the decision to stick with Alberta’s energy-only market along with the details surrounding TIER, and a focus by government on reducing red tape, should all help the sector attract investment.

“It is pretty clear there is a path forward for renewables here in the province,” said Evan Wilson, regional director with the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

All of these factors are propelling the wind and solar sector forward in the province, at the same time the oil and gas sector faces challenges to grow.

But it doesn’t have to be an either/or choice for the province moving forward. We’re going to need many forms of energy in the coming decades, and Alberta is an energy powerhouse, with potential to develop more wind and solar, as well as oil and natural gas resources.

“What we see sometimes is the politics and discussion around renewables or oil becomes a deliberate attempt to polarize people,” Arnold added.

“What we are trying to show, in working in Alberta on renewable projects, is it doesn’t have to be polarizing. There are a lot of solutions.

“The combination of solutions is part of what we need to talk about.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News