UNFI goes green at Texas facility

California clean electricity accelerates with renewables as solar and wind surge, battery storage strengthens grid resilience, natural gas declines, and coal fades, advancing SB 100 targets, carbon neutrality goals, and affordable, reliable power statewide.

Key Points

California clean electricity is the state's transition to renewable, zero-carbon power, scaling solar, wind and storage.

✅ Solar generation up nearly 20x since 2012

✅ Natural gas power down 20%; coal nearly phased out

✅ Battery storage shifts daytime surplus to evening demand

Data from the California Energy Commission (CEC) highlight California’s continued progress toward building a more resilient grid, achieving 100 percent clean electricity and meeting the state’s carbon neutrality goals.

Analysis of the state’s Total System Electric Generation report shows how California’s power mix has changed over the last decade. Since 2012:

Solar generation increased nearly twentyfold from 2,609 gigawatt-hours (GWh) to 48,950 GWh.

• Wind generation grew by 63 percent.
• Natural gas generation decreased 20 percent.
• Coal has been nearly phased-out of the power mix, and renewable electricity surpassed coal nationally in 2022 as well.

In addition to total utility generation, rooftop solar increased by 10 times generating 24,309 GWh of clean power in 2022. The state’s expanding fleet of battery storage resources also help support the grid by charging during the day using excess renewable power for use in the evening.

“This latest report card showing how solar energy boomed as natural gas powered electricity experienced a steady 20 percent decline over the last decade is encouraging,” said CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda. “Even as climate impacts become increasingly severe, California remains committed to transitioning away from polluting fossil fuels and delivering on the promise to build a future power grid that is clean, reliable and affordable.”

Senate Bill 100 (2018) requires 100 percent of California’s electric retail sales be supplied by renewable and zero-carbon energy sources by 2045. To keep the state on track, last year Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1020, establishing interim targets of 90 percent clean electricity by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040.

The state monitors progress through the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which tracks the power mix of retail sales, and regional peers such as Nevada's RPS progress offer useful comparison. The latest data show that in 2021 more than 37 percent of the state’s electricity came from RPS-eligible sources such as solar and wind, an increase of 2.7 percent compared to 2020. When combined with other sources of zero-carbon energy such as large hydroelectric generation and nuclear, nearly 59 percent of the state’s retail electricity sales came from nonfossil fuel sources.

The total system electric generation report is based on electric generation from all in-state power plants rated 1 megawatt (MW) or larger and imported utility-scale power generation. It reflects the percentage of a specific resource compared to all power generation, not just retail sales. The total system electric generation report accounts for energy used for water conveyance and pumping, transmission and distribution losses and other uses not captured under RPS.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro-QuE9bec Class-Action Lawsuit alleges overbilling and monopoly abuse, citing RE9gie de l'E9nergie rate increases, Quebec Superior Court filings, and calls for refunds on 2008-2013 electricity bills to residential and business customers.

Key Points

Quebec class action alleging Hydro-QuE9bec overbilled customers in 2008-2013, seeking court-ordered refunds.

✅ Filed in Quebec Superior Court; certification pending.

✅ Alleges up to $1.2B in overcharges from 2008-2013.

✅ Questions RE9gie de l'E9nergie rate approvals and data.

A group representing Hydro-Québec customers has filed a motion for a class-action lawsuit against the public utility, alleging it overcharged customers over a five-year period.

Freddy Molima, one of the representatives of the Coalition Peuple allumé, accuses Hydro-Québec of "abusing its monopoly."

The motion, which was filed in Quebec Superior Court, claims Hydro-Québec customers paid more than they should have for electricity between 2008 and 2013, to the tune of nearly $1.2 billion, even as Hydro-Québec later refunded $535 million to customers in a separate case. 

The coalition has so far recruited nearly 40,000 participants online as part of its plan to sue the public utility.

A lawyer representing the group said Quebec's energy board, the Régie de l'énergie, also recently approved Hydro-Québec rate increases for residential and business customers without knowing all the facts, even as Manitoba Hydro hikes face opposition in regulatory hearings.

"There's certain information provided to the Régie that isn't true," said Bryan Furlong. "Hydro-Québec has not been providing the Régie the proper numbers."

In its motion, the group asks that overcharged clients be retroactively reimbursed.

Hydro-Québec denies allegations

Hydro-Québec, for its part, denies it ever overbilled any of its clients, while other utilities such as Hydro One plan to redesign bills to improve clarity.

"All our efficiencies have been returned to the government through our profits, and to Quebecers we have billed exactly what we agreed to bill," said spokesperson Serge Abergel, adding that the utility won't seek a rate hike next year according to its current plans.

Quebec Energy Minister Pierre Moreau also came to the public utility's defence, saying it has no choice but to comply with the  energy board's regulations, while customer protections are in focus as Hydro One moves to reconnect 1,400 customers in Ontario.

The group says the public utility has overbilled clients by up to $1.2 billion. (Radio-Canada)

It would be "shocking" if customers were charged too much money, he added.

"I know for a fact that Hydro-Québec is respecting the decision of this body," he said.

While the motion has been filed, the group cannot say how much each customer would receive if the class-action lawsuit goes ahead because it all depends on how much electricity was consumed by each client over that five-year period.

The coalition plans to present its motion to a judge next February.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Nuclear Generating Costs 2017 show USD33.50/MWh for nuclear energy, the lowest since 2008, as capital expenditures, fuel costs, and operating costs declined after license renewals and uprates, supporting a reliable, low-carbon grid.

Key Points

The 2017 US nuclear average was USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008, driven by reduced capital, fuel, and operating costs.

✅ Average cost USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008

✅ Capital, fuel, O&M costs fell sharply since 2012 peak

✅ License renewals, uprates, market reforms shape competitiveness

Average total generating costs for nuclear energy in 2017 in the USA were at their lowest since 2008, according to a study released by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), amid a continuing nuclear decline debate in other regions.

The report, Nuclear Costs in Context, found that in 2017 the average total generating cost - which includes capital, fuel and operating costs - for nuclear energy was USD33.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh), even as interest in next-generation nuclear designs grows among stakeholders. This is 3.3% lower than in 2016 and more than 19% below 2012's peak. The reduction in costs since 2012 is due to a 40.8% reduction in capital expenditures, a 17.2% reduction in fuel costs and an 8.7% reduction in operating costs, the organisation said.

The year-on-year decline in capital costs over the past five years reflects the completion by most plants of efforts to prepare for operation beyond their initial 40-year licence. A few major items - a series of vessel head replacements; steam generator replacements and other upgrades as companies prepared for continued operation, and power uprates to increase output from existing plants - caused capital investment to increase to a peak in 2012. "As a result of these investments, 86 of the [USA's] 99 operating reactors in 2017 have received 20-year licence renewals and 92 of the operating reactors have been approved for uprates that have added over 7900 megawatts of electricity capacity. Capital spending on uprates and items necessary for operation beyond 40 years has moderated as most plants are completing these efforts," it says.

Since 2013, seven US nuclear reactors have shut down permanently, with the Three Mile Island debate highlighting wider policy questions, and another 12 have announced their permanent shutdown. The early closure for economic reasons of reliable nuclear plants with high capacity factors and relatively low generating costs will have long-term economic consequences, the report warns: replacement generating capacity, when needed, will produce more costly electricity, fewer jobs that will pay less, and, for net-zero emissions objectives, more pollution, it says.

NEI Vice President of Policy Development and Public Affairs John Kotek said the "hardworking men and women of the nuclear industry" had done an "amazing job" reducing costs through the institute's Delivering the Nuclear Promise campaign and other initiatives, in line with IAEA low-carbon lessons from the pandemic. "As we continue to face economic headwinds in markets which do not properly compensate nuclear plants, the industry has been doing its part to reduce costs to remain competitive," he said.

"Some things are in urgent need of change if we are to keep the nation's nuclear plants running and enjoy their contribution to a reliable, resilient and low-carbon grid. Namely, we need to put in place market reforms that fairly compensate nuclear similar to those already in place in New York, Illinois and other states," Kotek added.

Cost information in the study was collected by the Electric Utility Cost Group with prior years converted to 2017 dollars for accurate historical comparison.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electrification Potential Study for Canada evaluates NRCan's decarbonization roadmap, assessing electrification of end uses and replacements for fossil fuels across transportation, buildings, and industry, including propane, diesel, natural gas, and coal, to guide energy policy.

Key Points

An NRCan study assessing electrification to replace fossil fuels across sectors and guide deep decarbonization R&D.

✅ Evaluates non-electric alternatives alongside electrification paths

✅ Covers propane, diesel, natural gas, and coal end uses

✅ Guides NRCan R&D priorities for deep decarbonization

The federal government wants to spend up to $300,000 on a study aimed at understanding whether existing electrical technologies can “reduce or eliminate” fossil fuels used for virtually every purpose other than generating electricity.

The proposal has caused consternation within the Saskatchewan government, whose premier has criticized a 2035 net-zero grid target as shifting the goalposts, and which has spent months attacking federal policies it believes will harm the Western Canadian energy sector without meaningfully addressing climate change.

Procurement documents indicate the “Electrification Potential Study for Canada” will provide “strategic guidance on the need to pursue both electric and non-electric energy research and development to enable deep decarbonisation scenarios.”

“It is critical that (Natural Resources Canada) as a whole have a cross-sectoral, consistent, and comprehensive understanding of the viability of electric technologies as a replacement for fossil fuels,” the documents state.

The study proponent will be asked to examine possible replacements for a range of fuels, including propane, transportation fuel, fuel oil, diesel, natural gas and coal, even as Alberta maps a path to clean electricity for its grid. Only international travel fuel and electricity generation are outside the scope of the study.

“To be clear, the consultant should not answer these questions directly, but should conduct the analysis with them in mind. The goal … is to collate data which can be used by (Natural Resources Canada) to conduct analysis related to these questions,” the documents state.

Natural Resources Canada issued the request for proposals one week before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau officially launched a 40-day election campaign in which climate and energy policy, including debates over Alberta's power market like a Calgary retailer's challenge, is expected to play a defining role.

It also comes as the federal government works to complete the controversial Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project through British Columbia, amid tariff threats boosting support for Canadian energy projects, which it bought last year for $4.5 billion and is currently bogged down in the court system.

A Natural Resources Canada spokeswoman said the ministry would not be able to respond to questions until sometime on Thursday.

While the documents make clear that the study aims to answer unresolved questions about what the International Energy Agency calls an increasingly-electric future, with clean grid and storage trends emerging, without a specific timeline, the provincial government is far from thrilled.

Energy and Resources Minister Bronwyn Eyre said the document reflects the federal government’s “hostility” to the energy sector, even as Alberta's electricity sector faces profound change, because government ministries like Natural Resources Canada don’t do anything without political direction.

Asked whether a responsible government should consider every option before taking a decision, Eyre said a government that was not interested in eliminating fossil fuels entirely would not have used such “strong” language in a public document, noting that provinces like Ontario are grappling with hydro system problems as well.

“I think it’s a real wake-up call to what (Ottawa’s) endgame really is here,” she said, adding that the document does not ask the proponent to conduct an economic impact analysis or consider potential job losses in the energy sector.

The study is organized by Natural Resources Canada’s office of energy research and development, which is tasked with accelerating energy technology “in order to produce and use energy in … more clean and efficient ways,” the documents state.

Bidding on the proposal closes Oct. 14, one week before the federal election. The successful proponent must deliver a final report in April 2020, according to the documents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Iran Electricity Grid Synchronization enables regional interconnection, cross-border transmission, and Caspian-Europe energy corridors, linking Iraq, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Qatar to West Asia and European markets with reliable, flexible power exchange.

Key Points

Iran's initiative to link West Asian and European power grids for trade, transit, reliability, and regional influence.

✅ Synchronizes grids with Iraq, Azerbaijan, Russia, and potential Qatar link

✅ Enables east-to-Europe electricity transit via Caspian energy corridors

✅ Backed by gas-fueled and combined-cycle generation capacity

Following a plan for becoming West Asia’s electricity hub, Iran has been taking serious steps for joining its electricity network with neighbors in the past few years.

The Iranian Energy Ministry has been negotiating with the neighboring countries including Iraq for the connection of their power networks with Iran, discussing Iran-Iraq energy cooperation as well as ties with Russia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and Qatar to make them enable to import or transmit their electricity to new destination markets through Iran.

The synchronization of power grids with the neighboring countries, not only enhances Iran’s electricity exchanges with them, but it will also increase the political stance of the country in the region.

So far, Iran’s electricity network has been synchronized with Iraq, where Iran is supplying 40% of Iraq's power today, and back in September, the Energy Minister Reza Ardakanian announced that the electricity networks of Russia and Azerbaijan are the next in line for becoming linked with the Iranian grid in the coming months.

“Within the next few months, the study project of synchronization of the electricity networks of Iran, Azerbaijan, and Russia will be completed and then the executive operations will begin,” the minister said.

Meanwhile, Ardakanian and Qatari Minister of State for Energy Affairs Saad Sherida Al-Kaabi held an online meeting in late September to discuss joining the two countries' electricity networks via sea.

During the online meeting, Al-Kaabi said: "Electricity transfer between the two countries is possible and this proposal should be worked on.”

Now, taking a new step toward becoming the region’s power hub, Iran has suggested becoming a bridge between East and Europe for transmitting electricity.

In a virtual conference dubbed 1st Caspian Europe Forum hosted by Berlin on Thursday, the Iranian energy minister has expressed the country’s readiness for joining its electricity network with Europe.

"We are ready to connect Iran's electricity network, as the largest power generation power in West Asia, with the European countries and to provide the ground for the exchange of electricity with Europe," Ardakanian said addressing the online event.

Iran's energy infrastructure in the oil, gas, and electricity sectors can be used as good platforms for the transfer of energy from east to Europe, he noted.

In the event, which was aimed to study issues related to the development of economic cooperation, especially energy, between the countries of the Caspian Sea region, the official added that Iran, with its huge energy resources and having skilled manpower and advanced facilities in the field of energy, can pave the ground for the prosperity of international transport and energy corridors.

"In order to help promote communication between our landlocked neighbors with international markets, as Uzbekistan aims to export power to Afghanistan across the region, we have created a huge transit infrastructure in our country and have demonstrated in practice our commitment to regional development and peace and stability," Ardakanian said.

He pointed out that having a major percentage of proven oil and gas resources in the world, regional states need to strengthen relations in a bid to regulate production and export policies of these huge resources and potentially play a role in determining the price and supply of these resources worldwide.

“EU countries can join our regional cooperation in the framework of bilateral or multilateral mechanisms such as ECO,” he said.

Given the growing regional and global energy needs and the insufficient investment in the field, with parts of Central Asia facing severe electricity shortages today, as well as Europe's increasing needs, this area can become a sustainable area of cooperation, he noted.

Ardakanian also said that by investing in energy production in Iran, Europe can meet part of its future energy needs on a sustainable basis.

In Iraq, plans for nuclear power plants are being pursued to tackle chronic electricity shortages, reflecting parallel efforts to diversify generation.

Iran currently has electricity exchange with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, where grid rehabilitation deals have been finalized, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan.

The country’s total electricity exports vary depending on the hot and cold seasons of the year, since during the hot season which is the peak consumption period, the country’s electricity exports decreases, however electrical communication with neighboring countries continues.

Enjoying abundant gas resources, which is the main fuel for the majority of the country’s power plants, Iran has the capacity to produce about 85,500 megawatts [85.5 gigawatts (GW)] of electricity.

Currently, combined cycle power plants account for the biggest share in the country’s total power generation capacity as Iran is turning thermal plants to combined cycle to save energy, followed by gas power plants.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News