ATC studies show need for $2.5 billion in investment

Canada Clean Electricity leads decarbonization, slashing power-sector emissions through coal phase-out, renewables like hydro, wind, and solar, and nuclear. Provinces cut carbon intensity, enabling electrification of transport and buildings toward net-zero goals.

Key Points

Canada Clean Electricity is the shift to low-emission power by phasing out coal and scaling renewables and nuclear.

✅ 38% cut in electricity emissions since 2005; 84% fossil-free power.

✅ Provinces lead coal phase-out; carbon intensity plummets.

✅ Enables EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification.

It's our country’s one big climate success so far.

"All across Canada, electricity generation has been getting much cleaner. It's our country’s one big climate success so far,"

To illustrate how quickly electric power is being cleaned up, what's still left to do, and the benefits it brings, I've dug into Canada's latest emissions inventory and created a series of charts below.

The sector that could

Climate pollution by Canadian economic sector, 2005 to 2017My first chart shows how Canada's economic sectors have changed their climate pollution since 2005.

While most sectors have increased their pollution or made little progress in the climate fight, our electricity sector has shined.

As the green line shows, Canadians have eliminated an impressive 38 per cent of the climate pollution from electricity generation in just over a decade.

To put these shifts into context, I've shown Canada's 2020 climate target on the chart as a gray star. This target was set by the Harper government as part of the global Copenhagen Accord. Specifically, Canada pledged to cut our climate pollution 17 per cent below 2005 levels under evolving Canadian climate policy frameworks of the time.

As you can see, the electricity sector is the only one to have done that so far. And it didn’t just hit the target — it cut more than twice as much.

Change in Canada's electricity generation, 2005 to 2017My next chart shows how the electricity mix changed. The big climate pollution cuts came primarily from reductions in coal burning, highlighting the broader implications of decarbonizing Canada's electricity grid for fuel choices.

The decline in coal-fired power was replaced (and then some) by increases in renewable electricity and other zero-emissions sources — hydro, wind, solar and nuclear.

As a result, Canada's overall electricity generation is now 84 per cent fossil free.

Every province making progress

A primary reason why electricity emissions fell so quickly is because every province worked to clean up Canada's electricity together.

Change in Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity, 2005 to 2017

My next chart illustrates this rare example of Canada-wide climate progress. It shows how quickly the carbon-intensity of electricity generation has declined in different provinces.

(Note: carbon-intensity is the amount of climate pollution emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated: gCO2e/kWh).

Ontario clearly led the way with an amazing 92 per cent reduction in climate pollution per kWh in just twelve years. Most of that came from ending the burning of coal in their power plants. But a big chunk also came from cutting in half the amount of natural gas they burn for electricity.

Manitoba, Quebec and B.C. also made huge improvements.

Even Alberta and Saskatchewan, which were otherwise busy increasing their overall climate pollution, made progress in cleaning up their electricity.

These real-world examples show that rapid and substantial climate progress can happen in Canada when a broad-spectrum of political parties and provinces decide to act.

Most Canadians now have superclean electricity

As a result of this rapid cleanup, most Canadians now have access to superclean energy.

Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity in 2017

Who has it? And how clean is it?

The biggest climate story here is the superclean electricity generated by the four provinces shown on the left side — Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. and Ontario. Eighty per cent of Canadians live in these provinces and have access to this climate-safe energy source.

Those living in Alberta and Saskatchewan, however, still have fairly dirty electricity — as shown in orange on the right — and options like bridging the electricity gap between Alberta and B.C. could accelerate progress in the West.

A lot more cleanup must happen here before the families and businesses in these provinces have a climate-safe energy supply.

What's left to do?

Canada's electricity sector has two big climate tasks remaining: finishing the cleanup of existing power and generating even more clean energy to replace fossil fuels like the gasoline and natural gas used by vehicles, factories and other buildings.

Finishing the clean up

Climate pollution from Canadian provincial electricity 2005 and 2017

As we saw above, more than a third of the climate pollution from electricity has already been eliminated. That leaves nearly two-thirds still to clean up.

Back in 2005, Canada's total electricity emissions were 125 million tonnes (MtCO2).

Over the next twelve years, emissions fell by more than a third (-46 MtCO2). Ontario did most of the work by cutting 33 MtCO2. Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia made the next biggest cuts of around 4 MtCO2 each.

Now nearly eighty million tonnes of climate pollution remain.

As you can see, nearly all of that now comes from Alberta and Saskatchewan. As a result, continuing Canada's climate progress in the power sector now requires big cuts in the electricity emissions from these two provinces.

Generating more clean electricity

The second big climate task remaining for Canada's electricity is to generate more clean electricity to replace the fossil fuels burned in other sectors. My next chart lets you see how big a task this is.

Clean electricity generation by Canadian province, 2017

It shows how much climate-safe electricity is currently generated in major provinces. This includes zero-emissions renewables (blue bars) and nuclear power (pale blue).

Quebec tops the list with 191 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year. While impressive, it only accounts for around half of the energy Quebecers use. The other half still comes from climate-damaging fossil fuels and to replace those, Quebec will need to build out more clean energy.

The good news here is that electricity is more efficient for most tasks, so fossil fuels can be replaced with significantly less electric energy. In addition, other efficiency and reduction measures can further reduce the amount of new electricity needed.

Newfoundland and Labrador is in the best situation. They are the only province that already generates more climate-safe electricity than they would need to replace all the fossil fuels they burn. They currently export most of that clean electricity.

At the other extreme are Alberta and Saskatchewan. These provinces currently produce very little climate-safe energy. For example, Alberta's 7 TWh of climate-safe electricity is only enough to cover 1 per cent of the energy used in the province.

All told, Canadians currently burn fossil fuels for three-quarters of the energy we use. To preserve a safe-and-sane climate, most provinces will soon need lots more clean electricity in the race to net-zero to replace the fossil fuels we burn.

How soon will they need it?

According to the most recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), avoiding a full-blown climate crisis will require humanity to cut emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade.

Using electricity to clean up other sectors

Finally, let's look at how electricity can help clean up two of Canada’s other high-emission sectors — transportation and buildings.

Cleaning up transportation

Transportation is now the second biggest climate polluting sector in Canada (after the oil and gas industry). So, it’s a top priority to reduce the amount of gasoline we use.

Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity in 2017, plus gasoline equivalent

Switching to electric vehicles (EVs) can reduce transportation emissions by a little, or a lot. It depends on how clean the electricity supply is.

To make it easy to compare gasoline to each province's electricity I've added a new grey-striped zone at the top of the carbon-intensity chart.

This new zone shows that burning gasoline in cars and trucks has a carbon-intensity equivalent to more than 1,000 gCO2e/kWh. (If you are interested in the details of this and other data points, see the geeky endnotes.)

The good news is that every province's electricity is now much cleaner than gasoline as a transportation fuel.

In fact, most Canadians have electricity that is at least 95 per cent less climate polluting than gasoline. Electrifying vehicles in these provinces virtually eliminates those transportation emissions.

Even in Alberta, which has the dirtiest electricity, it is 20 per cent cleaner than gasoline. That's a help, for sure. But it also means that Albertans must electrify many more vehicles to achieve the same emissions reductions as regions with cleaner electricity.

In addition to reducing climate pollution, switching transportation to electricity brings other big benefits:

It reduces air pollution in cities — a major health hazard.

It cuts the energy required for transportation by 75 per cent — because electric motors are so much more efficient.

It reduces fuel costs up to 80 per cent — saving tens of thousands of dollars.

And for gasoline-importing provinces, using local electricity keeps billions of fuel dollars inside their provincial economy.

As an extra bonus, it makes it hard for companies to manipulate the price or for outsiders to "turn off the taps.”

Cleaning up buildings

Canada's third biggest source of climate pollution is the buildings sector.

Burning natural gas for heating is the primary cause. So, reducing the amount of fossil gas burned in buildings is another top climate requirement.

Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity in 2017, plus gasoline and nat gas heating equivalent

Heating with electricity is a common alternative. However, it's not always less climate polluting. It depends on how clean the electricity is.

To compare these two heating sources, look at the lower grey-striped zone I've added to the chart.

It shows that heating with natural gas has a carbon-intensity of 200 to 300 gCO2 per kWh of heat delivered. High-efficiency gas furnaces are at the lower end of this range.

As you can see, for most Canadians, electric heat is now the much cleaner choice — nearly eliminating emissions from buildings. But in Alberta and Saskatchewan, electricity is still too dirty to replace natural gas heat.

The climate benefits of electric heat can be improved further by using the newer high-efficiency air-source heat pump technologies like mini-splits. These can heat using one half to one third of the electricity of standard electric baseboard heaters. That means it is possible to use electricity that is a bit dirtier than natural gas and still deliver cleaner heating. As a bonus, heat pumps can free up a lot of existing electricity supply when used to replace existing electric baseboards.

Electrify everything

You’ve probably heard people say that to fight climate breakdown, we need to “electrify everything.” Of course, the electricity itself needs to be clean and what we’ve seen is that Canada is making important progress on that front. The electricity industry, and the politicians that prodded them, all deserve kudos for slashing emissions at more than twice the rate of any other sector.

We still need to finish the cleanup job, but we also need to turn our sights to the even bigger task ahead: requiring that everything fossil fuelled — every building, every factory, every vehicle — switches to clean Canadian power.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Texas PUC Appointments signal post-storm reform as Gov. Greg Abbott taps Peter Lake and advances Will McAdams for Senate confirmation, affecting ERCOT oversight, grid reliability, wholesale power pricing, and securitization for co-ops.

Key Points

Texas PUC appointments add Peter Lake and Will McAdams to steer ERCOT, grid reliability, and market policy.

✅ Peter Lake nominated chair to replace Arthur D'Andrea.

✅ Will McAdams advances toward Senate confirmation.

✅ Focus on ERCOT oversight, price cap debate, grid resilience.

A new set of Texas electricity regulators began to take shape Monday, as Gov. Greg Abbott nominated a finance expert to be the next chairman of the Public Utility Commission while his earlier choice of a PUC member moved toward Senate confirmation.

The Republican governor put forward Peter Lake of Austin, who has spent more than five years as an Abbott appointee to the Texas Water Development Board, as his second commission pick in as many weeks.

“I am confident he will bring a fresh perspective and trustworthy leadership to the PUC,” Abbott said of Lake, who once worked as a trader of futures and derivatives for a firm belonging to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and more recently has eagerly promoted bonds for the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas.

“Peter’s expertise in the Texas energy industry and business management will make him an asset to the agency,” Abbott, who has touted grid readiness in recent months, said in a written statement. “I urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Peter’s appointment.”

On Monday, the Senate appeared to be moving quickly to confirm Abbott’s April 1 selection for the PUC, Will McAdams, president of Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas and a former legislative aide who helped write policy for regulated industries such as electricity.

McAdams was among the 129 nominees that the Senate Nominations Committee voted out, 8-0. His nomination heads now to the Senate floor.

All three of Abbott’s handpicked PUC commissioners who were in place before and during February’s calamitous winter storm have since quit or said they’re resigning, even as Sierra Club criticism of Abbott's demands intensified in the aftermath.

February’s polar vortex left in its wake physical and financial wreckage after a nonprofit grid operator answering to the PUC, amid calls for market reforms to avoid blackouts, shut off electricity to more than 4 million Texans, causing the deaths of at least 125 people, 13 of them in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday named Will McAdams to the embattled Public Utility Commission of Texas. McAdams is a construction industry lobbyist with strong ties to the GOP-controlled Legislature. In Feb. 17 file photo, winter storm's snowfall andn large electrical transmission lines in South Arlington are pictured.

In a 45-minute confirmation hearing, McAdams, as lawmakers discussed ways to improve electricity reliability statewide, drew praise – and few tough questions.

McAdams, who previously worked for three GOP senators, testified that had he been on the commission in February, he would not have kept in place a controversial, $9,000-per-megawatt hour price cap on wholesale power for about 32 hours on Feb. 18-19.

“I don’t see myself making that decision,” he said.

McAdams, though, hedged slightly, saying he’s not privy to all information that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, and the PUC may have had at their disposal during the crisis.

The comments were notable because Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate have fought with Abbott and the House over $16 billion in overcharges that, according to an independent market monitor, wrongly accrued near the end of the Feb. 15-19 outages.

Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, said the commission’s former chairwoman, DeAnn Walker, and Bill Magness, president of ERCOT, decided to hold the high cap in place because there “was still great concern about grid stability, even though there was significant reserves.”

He pressed McAdams to call that incorrect, which McAdams did.

“Given the fact pattern that I’m privy to, senator,” it wasn’t the right move, he said. “But again, there may be other facts out there. There probably are.”

McAdams acknowledged many homeowners and businesses were traumatized.

“The public’s confidence in the ability of the PUC to effectively regulate our electric markets has been badly damaged and shaken,” he said.

McAdams spoke favorably of renewable energy, calling wind and solar “absolutely valuable resources,” as the electricity sector faces profound change nationwide. To whatever extent those are not available, the PUC should “firm that up” with “dispatchable forms of generation,” such as gas, coal and nuclear, McAdams said.

He also called for lawmakers to consider providing electricity market bailout through “securitization,” or low-interest bond financing, to rural electric co-ops that were unable to pay the massive wholesale power bills they racked up during the February crisis.

“It would prevent those systems from having to front-load those costs onto their own members and smooth that out over a term of years,” while preventing an “uplift” of costs to other market participants who wisely hedged against soaring prices, McAdams said.

Noting that more than 400 bills have been filed to change ERCOT and how it’s governed, and as Texans prepare to vote on grid modernization funding this year, McAdams told the Senate panel, “It is clear to me that the Legislature wants meaningful changes to the status quo – to ensure that something positive comes out of this tragedy.”

Lake, who if confirmed by the Senate would replace Arthur D’Andrea as PUC chairman, grew up in Tyler. He attended prep school in New England and earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago and a master of business administration degree from Stanford University.

He then worked for a commodities trading firm, a behavioral health company and as a business consultant before he became director of business development for Tyler-based Lake Ronel Oil Co. in 2014.

In late 2015, Abbott named Lake to the Texas Water Development Board and in February 2018 picked him to be the chairman of the three-member board that seeks to ensure water supplies for a fast-growing state.

Lake has steered the water board as it rolled out additional loans for water projects, approved by the Legislature and voters in 2013, and took the lead after Hurricane Harvey on flood control planning and infrastructure financing.

He’s posted exuberantly on Twitter as he toured agricultural water installations, lakes in West Texas and river authorities.

If confirmed, Lake and McAdams each would make $189,500 a year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Existing Nuclear Reactor Lifetime Extension sustains carbon-free electricity, supports deep decarbonization, and advances net zero climate goals by preserving the US nuclear fleet, stabilizing the grid, and complementing advanced reactors.

Key Points

Extending licenses keeps carbon-free nuclear online, stabilizes grid, and accelerates decarbonization toward net zero.

✅ Preserves 24/7 carbon-free baseload to meet climate targets

✅ Avoids emissions and replacement costs from premature retirements

✅ Complements advanced reactors; reduces capital and material needs

Nuclear power is the single largest source of carbon-free energy in the United States and currently provides nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electrical demand. As a result, many analyses have investigated the potential of future nuclear energy contributions in addressing climate change and investing in carbon-free electricity across the sector. However, few assess the value of existing nuclear power reactors.

Research led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Earth scientist Son H. Kim, with the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI), a partnership between PNNL and the University of Maryland, has added insight to the scarce literature and is the first to evaluate nuclear energy for meeting deep decarbonization goals amid rising credit risks for nuclear power identified by Moody's. Kim sought to answer the question: How much do our existing nuclear reactors contribute to the mission of meeting the country’s climate goals, both now and if their operating licenses were extended?

As the world races to discover solutions for reaching net zero as part of the global energy transition now underway, Kim’s report quantifies the economic value of bringing the existing nuclear fleet into the year 2100. It outlines its significant contributions to limiting global warming.

Plants slated to close by 2050 could be among the most important players in a challenge requiring all available carbon-free technology solutions—emerging and existing—alongside renewable electricity in many regions, the report finds. New nuclear technology also has a part to play, and its contributions could be boosted by driving down construction costs.  

“Even modest reductions in capital costs could bring big climate benefits,” said Kim. “Significant effort has been incorporated into the design of advanced reactors to reduce the use of all materials in general, such as concrete and steel because that directly translates into reduced costs and carbon emissions.”

Nuclear power reactors face an uncertain future, and some utilities face investor pressure to release climate reports as well.
The nuclear power fleet in the United States consists of 93 operating reactors across 28 states. Most of these plants were constructed and deployed between 1970-1990. Half of the fleet has outlived its original operating license lifetime of 40 years. While most reactors have had their licenses renewed for an additional 20 years, and some for another 20, the total number of reactors that will receive a lifetime extension to operate a full 80 years from deployment is uncertain.

Other countries also rely on nuclear energy. In France, for example, nuclear energy provides 70 percent of the country’s power supply. They and other countries must also consider extending the lifetime, retiring, or building new, modern reactors while navigating Canadian climate policy implications for electricity grids. However, the U.S. faces the potential retirement of many reactors in a short period—this could have a far stronger impact than the staggered closures other countries may experience.

“Our existing nuclear power plants are aging, and with their current 60-year lifetimes, nearly all of them will be gone by 2050. It’s ironic. We have a net zero goal to reach by 2050, yet our single largest source of carbon-free electricity is at risk of closure, as seen in New Zealand's electricity transition debates,“ said Kim.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.

Key Points

Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.

✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset

✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves

✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk

Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick. 

The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.

At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.

The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”

But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.

In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables. 

And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.

It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.

California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.

Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.

Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”

The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.

Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.

California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.

Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.

California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.

There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.

Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.

California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.

After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.” 

“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Electricity Imports shape CleanBC claims as Powerex trades cross-border electricity, blending hydro with coal and gas supplies, affecting emissions, grid carbon intensity, and how electric vehicles and households assess "clean" power.

Key Points

Powerex buys power for BC Hydro, mixing hydro with coal and gas, shifting emissions and affecting CleanBC targets.

✅ Powerex trades optimize price, not carbon intensity

✅ Imports can include coal- and gas-fired generation

✅ Emissions affect EV and CleanBC decarbonization claims

British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car. 

That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, amid indications that residents are split on going nuclear according to a survey, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.

“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.” 

Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C. 

Here’s why. 

BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low. 

In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures and the commissioning of two new generating stations in B.C.) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.

“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC. 

“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas. 

Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)

Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy amid debate over the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year. 

So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.   

Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.  

In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle. 

These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.

Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.

BC Electric Vehicles Announcement Horgan Heyman Mungall Weaver
In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry, noting that electrification has prompted a first call for power in 15 years from BC Hydro.

Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.

“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”

Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex
These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws. 

Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly. 

According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.  

“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. 

Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.

‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power
Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement. 

But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.” 

Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where generators are shifting to gas and 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.

“It really is impossible to make that determination.” 

Wyoming Gilette coal pits NASA
The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory

Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta. 

But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources. 

In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator. 

Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C. 

California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C. 

And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year. 

By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million,  Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.

Clean electrons or dirty electrons?
Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand. 

Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes. 

“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”

Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.

Elsewhere in Canada, analysts warn that Ontario's electricity could get dirtier as policies change, raising similar concerns.

“As a consumer you never know whether you’re getting a clean electron or a dirty electron. You’re just getting an electron.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News