Proposed coal plants facing stiff resistance

California energy rebate freeze disrupts heat pump incentives, HVAC upgrades, and climate funding, as federal uncertainty stalls Inflation Reduction Act support, delaying home electrification, energy efficiency gains, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions statewide.

Key Points

A statewide pause on $290M incentives for heat pumps and HVAC upgrades due to federal climate funding uncertainty.

✅ $290M program paused amid federal funding freeze

✅ Heat pump, HVAC, electrification upgrades delayed

✅ Previously approved rebates honored; new apps halted

California’s push for a more energy-efficient future has hit a significant roadblock as the state pauses a $290 million rebate program aimed at helping homeowners replace inefficient heating and cooling systems with more energy-efficient alternatives. The California Energy Commission announced the suspension of the program, citing uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze funding for various climate-related initiatives.

The Halted Program

The energy rebate program, which utilizes federal funding to encourage the use of energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps, was a crucial part of California’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing financial incentives for homeowners to upgrade to more efficient heating and cooling systems, the program aimed to make green energy solutions more accessible and affordable to residents. The rebate program had been popular, with many homeowners eager to participate in the initiative to lower their energy costs and improve the sustainability of their homes.

However, due to the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the California Energy Commission announced on Monday that it would no longer be accepting new applications for the program. The agency did clarify that it would continue to honor rebates for applications that had already been approved. The pause will remain in effect until the Trump administration provides more clarity regarding the program's future funding.

The Trump Administration’s Role

This move highlights a broader issue regarding access to federal funding for state-level energy programs. The Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding for climate-related initiatives has left many states in limbo, as previously approved federal money has not been distributed as expected. Despite federal court rulings directing the Trump administration to restore these funds, states like California are still struggling to navigate the uncertainty of climate-related financial support from the federal government.

California’s decision to pause the rebate program comes after similar actions by other states. Arizona paused a similar program just a week prior, and Rhode Island had already paused new applications earlier this year. These states are all recipients of funding from a larger $4.3 billion initiative under the Inflation Reduction Act, which is designed to help homeowners purchase energy-efficient appliances like heat pumps, water heaters, and electric cooktops.

Impact of the Freeze

The pause of California's rebate program has serious implications for both consumers and the state’s energy goals. For residents, the halt means delays in the ability to upgrade to more energy-efficient home systems, which could lead to higher energy costs in the short term, a concern amid soaring electricity prices across the state.

The $290 million program was a significant step in encouraging homeowners to invest in energy efficiency, and its suspension leaves a gap in the availability of resources for those who were hoping to make energy-saving upgrades. Many of these upgrades are not just beneficial to homeowners, but they also contribute to the state’s overall energy efficiency goals, helping to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources, even as California's dependence on fossil fuels persists, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal and State Tensions

The freeze in funding is just one of many points of tension between the Trump administration and states like California, which have pursued aggressive environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions and combating climate change. California has often found itself at odds with the federal government on environmental issues, especially under the leadership of President Trump. The state’s ambitious environmental policies have sometimes clashed with the federal government's approach, including efforts to wind down its fossil fuel industry in line with climate goals.

In this case, the freeze on climate-related funding appears to be part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to limit federal spending on environmental programs, and as regulators weigh whether the state may need more power plants, planning remains complex. While the freeze impacts states that are working to transition to clean energy, critics argue that such moves undermine efforts to tackle climate change and could slow down progress toward a greener future.

The Path Forward

For California, the next steps will depend heavily on the actions of the federal government. While the state can continue to push for climate funding in the courts, the lack of clarity around the release of federal funds creates uncertainty for state programs that rely on these resources. As California continues to navigate this funding freeze, it will need to explore alternative solutions to keep its energy efficiency programs on track, such as efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid, even in the face of federal challenges.

In the meantime, California residents and homeowners who were hoping to take advantage of the rebate program may have to wait until further clarification from the federal government is provided, even as officials warn of a looming electricity shortage in coming years. Whether the program can be restored or expanded in the future remains to be seen, but for now, the pause serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles that states face when dealing with shifting federal priorities.

As the issue unfolds, other states facing similar challenges may take cues from California’s actions, and with California exporting energy policies to Western states, broader conversations about how federal and state governments can collaborate to ensure that energy efficiency initiatives and climate goals are not sidelined due to political or budgetary differences.

California’s decision to pause its $290 million energy rebate program is a significant development in the ongoing struggle between state and federal governments over climate-related funding. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration’s freeze on energy efficiency programs has led to disruptions in state-level efforts to promote sustainability and reduce emissions. As the situation continues to evolve, both California and other states will need to consider how to move forward without relying on federal funding that may or may not be available in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Electricity Grid Decarbonization outlines the IESO's net-zero pathway: $400B investment, nuclear expansion, renewables, hydrogen, storage, and demand management to double capacity by 2050 while initiating a 2027 natural gas moratorium.

Key Points

A 2050 plan to double capacity, retire gas, and invest $400B in nuclear, renewables, and storage for a net-zero grid.

✅ $400B over 25 years to meet net-zero electricity by 2050

✅ Capacity doubles to 88,000 MW; demand grows ~2% annually

✅ 2027 gas moratorium; build nuclear, renewables, storage

Ontario will need to spend $400 billion over the next 25 years in order to decarbonize the electricity grid and embrace clean power according to a new report by the province’s electricity system manager that’s now being considered by the Ford government.

The Independent System Electricity Operator (IESO) was tasked with laying out a path to reducing Ontario’s reliance on natural gas for electricity generation and what it would take to decarbonize the entire electricity grid by 2050.

Meeting the goal, the IESO concluded, will require an “aggressive” approach of doubling the electricity capacity in Ontario over the next two-and-a-half decades — from 42,000 MW to 88,000 MW — by investing in nuclear, hydrogen and wind and solar power while implementing conservation policies and managing demand.

“The process of fully eliminating emissions from the grid itself will be a significant and complex undertaking,” IESO president Lesley Gallinger said in a news release.

The road to decarbonization, the IESO said, begins with a moratorium on natural gas power generation starting in 2027 as long as the province has “sufficient, non-emitting supply” to meet the growing demands on the grid.

The approach, however, comes with significant risks.

The IESO said hydroelectric and nuclear facilities can take 10 to 15 years to build and if costs aren’t controlled the plan could drive up the price of clean electricity, turning homeowners and businesses away from electrification.

“Rapidly rising electricity costs could discourage electrification, stifle economic growth or hurt consumers with low incomes,” the report states.

The IESO said the province will need to take several “no regret” actions, including selecting sites and planning to construct new large-scale nuclear plants as well as hydroelectric and energy storage projects and expanding energy-efficiency programs beyond 2024.

READ MORE: Ontario faces calls to dramatically increase energy efficiency rebate programs

Ontario’s minister of energy didn’t immediately commit to implementing the recommendations, citing the need to consult with stakeholders first.

“I look forward to launching a consultation in the new year on next steps from today’s report, including the potential development of major nuclear, hydroelectric and transmissions projects,” Todd Smith said in a statement.

Currently, electricity demand is increasing by roughly two per cent per year, raising concerns Ontario could be short of electricity in the coming years as the manufacturing and transportation sectors electrify and as more sectors consider decarbonization.

At the same time, the province’s energy supply is facing “downward pressure” with the Pickering nuclear power plant slated to wind down operations and the Darlington nuclear generating station under active refurbishment.

To meet the energy need, the Ford government said it intended to extend the life of the Pickering plant until 2026.

READ MORE: Ontario planning to keep Pickering nuclear power station open until 2026

But to prepare for the increase, the Ontario government was told the province would also need to build new natural gas facilities to bridge Ontario’s electricity supply gap in the near term — a recommendation the Ford government agreed to.

The IESO said a request for proposals has been opened and the province is looking for host communities, with the expectation that existing facilities would be upgraded before projects on undeveloped land would be considered.

The IESO said the contract for any new facilities would expire in 2040, and all natural gas facilities would be retired in the 2040s.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.

Key Points

Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.

✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices

✅ ISO-NE winter reliability rules encourage oil stockpiles

✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth

New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets. 

Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.  

Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years. 

Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said. 

“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.

During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.

Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.

Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.

But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.

After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.

We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.

That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.

So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.

The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.

Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US energy mix shows how the electric grid blends renewables, fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro, varying by ISO/RTO markets, utilities, and state policies, affecting carbon emissions, pricing, reliability, and access.

Key Points

The US energy mix is the grid's source breakdown by region: fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear, and hydro.

✅ Check ISO or RTO dashboards for real-time generation by fuel source.

✅ Utilities may offer green power plans or RECs at modest premiums.

✅ Energy mix shifts with policy, pricing, and grid reliability needs.

There are few resources more important than energy. Sure, you may die if you don't eat for days. But your phone will die if you go too long without charging it. Energy feeds tech, the internet, city infrastructure, refrigerators, lights, and has evolved throughout U.S. history in profound ways. You get the idea. Yet unlike our other common needs, such as food, energy sources aren't exactly front of mind for most people. 

"I think a lot of people don't put a lot of bandwidth into thinking about this part of their lives," said Richard McMahon, the SVP of energy supply and finance at Edison Electric Institute, a trade group that represents investor-owned electric companies in the US. 

It makes sense. For most Americans, electricity is always there, and in many locations, there's not much of a choice involved, even as electricity demand is flat across the U.S. today. You sign up with a utility when you move into a new residence and pay your bills when they're due. 

But there's an important reality that indifference eschews: In 2018, a third of the energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions in the US came from the electric power sector, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

A good chunk of that is from the residential sector, which consistently uses more energy than commercial customers, per EIA data.

Just as many people exercise choice when they eat, you typically also have a choice when it comes to your energy supply. That's not to say your current offering isn't what you want, or that switching will be easy or affordable, but "if you're a customer and want power with a certain attribute," McMahon said, "you can pretty much get it wherever you are." 

But first, you need to know the energy mix you have right now. As it turns out, it's not so straightforward. At all.

This brief guide may help. 

For some utility providers, you can find out if it publishes the energy mix online. Dominion Energy, which serves Idaho, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, provides this information in a colored graphic. 

"Once you figure out who your utility is you can figure out what mix of resources they use," said Heidi Ratz, an electricity markets researcher at the World Resources Institute.

But not all utilities publish this information.

It has to do with their role in the grid and reflects utility industry trends in structure and markets. Some utility companies are vertically integrated; they generate power through nuclear plants or wind farms and distribute those electrons directly to their customers. Other utilities just distribute the power that different companies produce. 

Consider Consolidated Edison, or Con Ed, which distributes energy to parts of New York City. While reporting this story, Business Insider could not find information about the utility's energy mix online. When reached for comment, a spokesperson said, "we're indifferent to where it comes from."

That's because, in New York, distribution utilities like Con Ed often buy energy through a wholesale marketplace.

Take a look at this map. If you live in one of the colored regions, your electricity is sold on a wholesale market regulated by an organization called a regional transmission organization (RTO) or independent system operator (ISO). Distribution utilities like Con Ed often buy their energy through these markets, based on availability and cost, while raising questions about future utility revenue models as prices shift. 

Still, it's pretty easy to figure out where your energy comes from. Just look up the ISO or RTO website (such as NYISO or CAISO). Usually, these organizations will provide energy supply information in near-real time. 

That's exactly what Con Edison (which buys energy on the NYISO marketplace) suggested. As of Friday morning, roughly 40% of the energy on the market place was natural gas or other fossil fuels, 34% was nuclear, and about 22% was hydro. 

If you live in another region governed by an ISO or RTO, such as in most of California, you can do the same thing. Like NYISO, CAISO has a dashboard that shows (again, as of Friday morning) about 36% of the energy on the market comes from natural gas and more than 20% comes from renewables. 

In the map linked above, you'll notice that some of the ISOs and RTOs like MISO encompass enormous regions. That means that even if you figure out where the energy in your market comes from, it's not going to be geographically specific. But there are a couple of ways to drill down even further. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has a straightforward tool called Power Profiler. You can enter your zip code to see the fuel mix in your area. But it's not perfect. The data are from 2016 and, in some regions of the country like the upper Midwest, they aren't much more localized, and some import dirty electricity due to regional trading. 

The World Resources Institute also has a tool that allows you to see the electricity mix by state, based on 2017 data from EIA. These numbers represent power generation, not the electricity actually flowing into your sockets, but they offer a rough idea of what energy resources are operating in your state. 

One option is to check with your utility to see if it has a "green power" offering. Over 600 utilities across the country have one, according to the Climate Reality Project, though they often come at a slightly higher cost. It's typically on the scale of just a few more cents per kilowatt-hour. 

There are also independent, consumer-facing companies like Arcadia and Green Mountain Energy that allow you to source renewable energy, by virtually connecting you to community solar projects or purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates, or RECs, on your behalf, as America goes electric and more options emerge. 

"RECs measure an investment in a clean energy resource," Ratz said, in an email. "The goal of putting that resource on the grid is to push out the need for dirtier resources."

The good news: Even if you do nothing, your energy mix will get cleaner. Coal production has fallen to lows not seen since the 1980s, amid disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors that affect reliability and costs, while renewable electricity generation has doubled since 2008. So whether you like it or not, you'll be roped into the clean energy boom one way or another. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

India Electricity Production 2017 surged to 1,160 BU, ranking third globally; rising TWh output with 334 GW capacity, strong renewables and thermal mix, 7% CAGR in generation, and growing demand, investments, and FDI inflows.

Key Points

India's 2017 power output reached 1,160 BU, third globally, supported by 334 GW capacity, rising renewables, and 7% CAGR.

✅ 1,160 BU generated; third after China and the US

✅ Installed capacity 334 GW; 65% thermal, rising renewables

✅ Generation CAGR ~7%; demand, FDI, investments rising

India now generates around 1,160.1 billion units of electricity in financial year 2017, up 4.72% from the previous year, and amid surging global electricity demand that is straining power systems. The country is behind only China which produced 6,015 terrawatt hours (TWh. 1 TW = 1,000,000 megawatts) and the US (4,327 TWh), and is ahead of Russia, Japan, Germany, and Canada.

India’s electricity production grew 34% over seven years to 2017, and the country now produces more energy than Japan and Russia, which had 27% and 8.77% more electricity generation capacity installed, respectively, than India seven years ago.

India produced 1,160.10 billion units (BU) of electricity–one BU is enough to power 10 million households (one household using average of about 3 units per day) for a month–in financial year (FY) 2017. Electricity production stood at 1,003.525 BU between April 2017-January 2018, according to a February 2018 report by India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF), a trust established by the commerce ministry.

#google#

With a production of 1,423 BU in FY 2016, India was the third largest producer and the third largest consumer of electricity in the world, behind China (6,015 BU) and the United States (4,327 BU).

With an annual growth rate of 22.6% capacity addition over a decade to FY 2017, renewables beat other power sources–thermal, hydro and nuclear. Renewables, however, made up only 18.79% of India’s energy, up 68.65% since 2007, and globally, low-emissions sources are expected to cover most demand growth in the coming years. About 65% of installed capacity continues to be thermal.

As of January 2018, India has installed power capacity of 334.4 gigawatt (GW), making it the fifth largest installed capacity in the world after European Union, China, United States and Japan, and with much of the fleet coal-based, imported coal volumes have risen at times amid domestic supply constraints.

The government is targeting capacity addition of around 100 GW–the current power production of United Kingdom–by 2022, as per the IBEF report.

Electricity generation grew at 7% annually

India achieved a 34.48% growth in electricity production by producing 1,160.10 BU in 2017 compared to 771.60 BU in 2010–meaning that in these seven years, electricity production in India grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.03%, while thermal power plants' PLF has risen recently amid higher demand and lower hydro.

Generation capacity grew at 10% annually

Of 334.5 GW installed capacity as of January 2018–up 60% from 132.30 GW in 2007–thermal installed capacity was 219.81 GW. Hydro and renewable energy installed capacity totaled 44.96 GW and 62.85 GW, respectively, said the report.

The CAGR in installed capacity over a decade to 2017 was 10.57% for thermal power, 22.06% for renewable energy–the fastest among all sources of power–2.51% for hydro power and 5.68% for nuclear power.

Growing demand, higher investments will drive future growth

Growing population and increasing penetration of electricity connections, along with increasing per-capita usage would provide further impetus to the power sector, said the report.

Power consumption is estimated to increase from 1,160.1 BU in 2016 to 1,894.7 BU in 2022, as per the report, though electricity demand fell sharply in one recent period.

Increasing investment remained one of the driving factors of power sector growth in the country.

Power sector has a 100% foreign direct investment (FDI) permit, which boosted FDI inflows in the sector.

Total FDI inflows in the power sector reached $12.97 billion (Rs 83,713 crore) during April 2000 to December 2017, accounting for 3.52% of FDI inflows in India, the report said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News