NRCan highlights benefits of energy market diversification in Ontario

Green Party Mission Possible 2030 outlines a rapid transition to renewable energy, electric vehicles, carbon pricing, and grid modernization, phasing out oil and gas while creating green jobs, public transit upgrades, and building retrofits.

Key Points

A Canadian climate roadmap to decarbonize by 2030 via renewables, EVs, carbon pricing, and grid upgrades.

✅ Ban on new gas cars by 2030; accelerate EV adoption and charging.

✅ 100 percent renewable-powered grid with interprovincial links.

✅ Just transition: retraining, green jobs, and building retrofits.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has a vision for Canada in 2030. In 11 years, all new cars will be electric. A national ban will prohibit anyone from buying a gas-powered vehicle. No matter where you live, charging stations will make driving long distances easy and affordable. Alberta’s oil industry will be on the way out, replaced by jobs in sectors such as urban farming, renewable energy and retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency. The electric grid will be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy as Canada’s race to net-zero accelerates.

It’s all part of the Greens’ “Mission Possible” – a detailed plan released Monday with a level of ambition made clear by its very name. May insists it’s the only way to confront the climate crisis head-on before it’s too late.

“We have to set our targets on what needs to be done. You can’t negotiate with physics,” May told CTV’s Power Play on Monday.

But is that 2030 vision realistic?

CTVNews.ca spoke with experts in economics, political policy, renewable energy and climate science to explore how feasible May’s plan is, how much it would cost and what transitioning to an environmentally-centred economy would look like for everyday Canadians.

MOVING TO A GREEN ECONOMY

Recent polling from Nanos Research shows that the environment and climate change is the top issue among voters this election.

If the Greens win a majority on Oct. 21 – an outcome that May herself acknowledged isn’t likely – it would signal a major restructuring of the Canadian economy.

According to the party’s platform, jobs in the fuels sectors, such as oil and gas production in Alberta, would eventually disappear. The Greens say those job losses would be replaced by opportunities in a variety of fields including renewable energy, farming, public transportation, manufacturing, construction and information technology.

The party would also introduce a guaranteed livable income and greater support for technical and educational training to help workers transition to new jobs.

But Jean-Thomas Bernard, an economist who specializes in energy markets, said plenty of people in today’s energy sector, such as oil and gas workers, wouldn’t have the skills to make that transition.

“Quite a few of these jobs have low technical requirements. Driving a truck is driving a truck. So quite few of these people will not have the capacity to be recycled into well-paid jobs in the renewable sector,” he said.

“Maybe this would be for the young generation, but not people who are 40, 45, 50.”

Ryan Katz-Rosene is an associate professor at the University of Ottawa who researches environmental policy. He says May’s overall pitch is technically possible but would require a huge amount of enthusiasm on behalf of the public. 

“The plan in itself is not physically impossible. It is theoretically achievable. But it would require a major, major change in the urgency and the level of action, the level of investment, the level of popular urgency, the level of political commitment,” he said.

“But it’s not completely fantastical in it being theoretically impossible.”

PHASING OUT BITUMEN PRODUCTION

Katz-Rosene said that, under the Greens’ plan, Canadians would need to pay for a bold carbon pricing plan that helps shift the country away from fossil fuels and has significant implications for electricity grids, he said. It would also mean dramatically upscaling the capacity of Canada’s existing electrical grid to account for millions of new electric cars, reflecting the need for more electricity to hit net-zero as demand grows.

 “Given Canada’s slow attempt to climate action and pretty lacklustre results in these years, to be frank, this plan is very, very difficult to achieve. We’re talking 11 years from now. But things change, people change, and sometimes that change can occur very quickly. Just look at the type of climate mobilization we’re seen among young people in the last year, or the last five years.”

Bernard, the economist, is less optimistic. He cited international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 and the more recent Paris Climate Agreement and said that little has come of those plans.

A climate solution with teeth, he suggests, would need to be global – something that no federal government can completely control.

“I find a lot this talk to be overly optimistic. I don’t know why we keep having this talk that is overly optimistic,” he said, adding that he believes humankind is already beyond the point of being able to stop irreversible climate change. 

“I think we are moving toward a mess, but the effort to control that is still not there.”

As for transitioning away from Canada’s oil industry, Bernard said May’s plan simply wouldn’t work.

“Trying to block some oil production here and there means more oil will be produced elsewhere,” he said. “Canada could become a clean country, but worldwide it would not be much.”

Mike Hudema, a climate organizer with Greenpeace Canada, thinks the Green Party’s promises for 2030 are big – and that’s kind of the point.

“They are definitely ambitious, but ambition is exactly what these times call for.  Unfortunately our government has delayed acting on this problem for so long that we have a very short timeline which we have to turn the ship,” he said.

“So this is the type of ambition that the science is calling for. So yes, I believe that if we here in Canada were to put our minds to addressing this problem, then we have the ability to reach it in that 2030 timeframe.”

In a statement to CTVNews.ca, a Green Party spokesperson said the 2030 timeline is intended to meet the 45 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 as laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“If we miss the 2030 target, we risk triggering runaway global warming,” the spokesperson said.

GREENING THE GRID BY 2030

Greening Canada’s existing electric grid – a goal May has pegged to 2030 – is quite feasible, Katz-Rosene said, and cleaning up Canada’s electricity is critical to meeting climate pledges. Already, 82 per cent of the country’s electric grid is run off of renewable resources, which makes Canada a world leader in the field, he said.

Hudema agrees.

“It is feasible. Canada does have a grid already that has a lot of renewables in it. So yes we can definitely make it over the hump and complete the transition. But we do need investments in our electric grid infrastructure to ensure a certain capability. That comes with tremendous job growth. That’s the exciting part that people keep missing,” Hudema said.

But Bernard said switching the grid to 100 per cent renewables would be quite difficult. He suggested that the Greens’ 2030 vision would require Ontario and Quebec’s hydro production to help power the Prairies.

“To think we could boost (hydro production) much more in order to meet Saskatchewan and Alberta’s needs? Oh boy. To do this before 2030? I think that’s not reasonable, not feasible.”

In a statement to CTV News, the Greens said their strategy includes building new connections between eastern Manitoba and western Ontario to transmit clean energy. They would also upgrade existing connections between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and between B.C. and Alberta to boost reliability.

A number of “micro-grids” in local communities capable of storing clean energy would help reduce the dependency on nationwide distribution systems, the party said.

Even so, the Greens acknowledged that, by 2030, some towns and cities will still be using some fossil fuels, and that even by 2050 – the goal for achieving overall carbon neutrality – some “legacy users” of fossil fuels will remain.

However, according to party projections, the emissions of these “legacy users” would be at most 8 per cent of today’s levels and those emissions would be “more than completely offset” by re-forestation and new technologies, such as CO2 capture and storage.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE REVOLUTION

The Green Party’s platform promises to revolutionize the Canadian auto sector. By 2030, all new cars made in Canada would be electric and federal EV sales regulations would prohibit the sale of cars powered by gasoline.

Danny Harvey, a geography professor with the University of Toronto who specializes in renewable energy, said he thinks May’s plan for making a 100 per cent renewable-powered electric grid is feasible.

On cars, however, he thinks the emphasis on electric vehicles is “misplaced.”

“At this point in time we should be requiring automobiles to transition, by 2030, to making cars that can go three times further on a litre of gasoline than at present. This would require selling only advanced hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), which would run entirely on gasoline (like current HEVs),” he said.

“After that, and when the grid is fully ready, we could make the transition to fully electric or plugin hybrid electric vehicles, possibly using H2 for long-distance driving.”

At the moment, zero-emissions vehicles account for just over 2 per cent of annual vehicle sales in Canada. Katz-Rosene said that “isn’t a whole lot,” but the industry is on an exponential growth curve that doesn’t show any signs of slowing.

The trouble with May’s 2030 goal on electric vehicles, he said, has to do with Canadians’ taste in vehicles. In short: Canadians like trucks.

“The biggest obstacle I see is that I don’t even think it’s possible to get a light-duty truck, a Ford F150, in an electric model in Canada. And that’s the most popular type of vehicle,” he said.

However, if a zero emissions truck were on the market – something that automakers are already working on – then that could potentially shake things up, especially if the government introduces incentives for electric vehicles and higher taxes on gasoline, he said.

WHAT ABOUT THE COST?

CTVNews.ca reached out to the Green Party to ask how it would pay to revamp the electrical grid. The party did not give a precise figure but said that the plan “has been estimated to cost somewhat less” than the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion.

The Greens have vowed to scrap the expansion and put that money toward the project.

Upgrading the electric grid to 100 per cent sustainable energy would also be a cost-effective, long-term solution, the Greens believe, though critics say Ottawa is making electricity more expensive for Albertans amid the transition.

“Current projects for renewable energy in Canada and worldwide are consistently at lower capital and operating costs than any type of fossil, hydro or nuclear energy project,” the party spokesperson said.

The party’s platform includes other potential sources of money, including closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, cracking down on offshore tax dodging and a new corporate tax on e-commerce companies, such as Facebook, Amazon and Netflix. The Greens have also vowed to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies.

As for the economic realities, Katz-Rosene acknowledged that May’s plan may appeal to “radical” voters who view economic growth as anathema to addressing climate change.

But while May’s plan would be disruptive, it isn’t anti-capitalist, he said.

“It’s restrained capitalism. But it by no means an anti-capitalist platform, and none of the parties have an anti-capitalist platform by any stretch of the imagination,” Katz-Rosene said.

From an economist’s perspective, Bernard said the plan is still “very costly” and that taxes can only go so far.

“In the end, no corporation operates at a loss. At some stage, these taxes have to go to the users,” he said.

But conversations around money must also consider the cost of inaction on climate change, Hudema said.

“Costing (Elizabeth May) is always a concern and how we’re going to afford these things is something we definitely need to keep top of mind. But within that conversation we need to look at what is the cost of not doing what is in line with what the science is saying. I would say that cost is much more substantial.”

“The forecast, if we don’t act – it’s astronomical.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Global Adjustment Deferral offers COVID-19 electricity bill relief to industrial and commercial consumers not on the RPP, aligning GA to March levels for Class A and Class B manufacturers to improve cash flow.

Key Points

A temporary GA deferral easing electricity costs for Ontario industrial and commercial users not on the RPP.

✅ Sets Class B GA at $115/MWh; Class A gets equal percentage cut.

✅ Applies April-June 2020; automatic bill adjustments and credits.

✅ Deferred charges repaid over 12 months starting January 2021.

Manufacturers welcome the Government of Ontario's decision to defer a portion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges as part of support for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan.

"Manufacturers are pleased the government listened to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) member recommendations and is taking action to reduce Ontario electricity bills immediately," said Dennis Darby, President & CEO of CME.

"The majority of manufacturers have identified cash flow as their top concern during the crisis, "added Darby. "The GA system would have caused a nearly $2 billion cost surge to Ontario manufacturers this year. This new initiative by the government is on top of the billions in support already provided to help manufacturers weather this unprecedented storm, while other provinces accelerate British Columbia's clean energy shift to drive long-term competitiveness. All these measures are a great start in helping businesses of all sizes stay afloat during the crisis and, keeping Ontarians employed."

"We call on the Ontario government to continue to consider the impact of electricity costs on the manufacturing sector, even after the COVID-19 crisis is resolved," stated Darby. "High prices are putting Ontario manufacturers at a significant competitive disadvantage and, discourages investments." A recent report from London Economics International (LEI) found that when compared to jurisdictions with similar manufacturing industries, Ontario's electricity prices can be up to 75% more expensive, underscoring the importance of planning for Toronto's growing electricity needs to maintain affordability.

To provide companies with temporary immediate relief on their electricity bills, the Ontario government is deferring a portion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP), starting from April 2020, as some regions saw reduced electricity demand from widespread remote work during the pandemic. The GA rate for smaller industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class B) has been set at $115 per megawatt-hour, which is roughly in line with the March 2020 value. Large industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class A) will receive the same percentage reduction in GA charges as Class B consumers.

The Ontario government intends to keep this relief in place through the end of June 2020, alongside investments like smart grid technology in Sault Ste. Marie to support reliability, subject to necessary extensions and approvals to implement this initiative.

Industrial and commercial electricity consumers will automatically see this relief reflected on their bills. Consumers who have already received their April bill should see an adjustment on a future bill.

Related initiatives include developing cyber standards for electricity sector IoT devices to strengthen system security.

The government intends to bring forward subsequent amendments that would, if approved, recover the deferred GA charges (excluding interest) from industrial and commercial electricity consumers, as Toronto prepares for a surge in electricity demand amid continued growth, over a 12-month period beginning in January 2021.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

California Electricity Reliability covers grid resilience amid heat waves, rolling blackouts, renewable energy integration, resource adequacy, battery storage, natural gas peakers, ISO oversight, and peak demand management to keep homes, businesses, and industry powered.

Key Points

Dependable California power delivery despite heat waves, peak demand, and challenges integrating renewables into grid.

✅ Rolling blackouts revealed gaps in resource adequacy.

✅ Early evening solar drop requires fast ramping and storage.

✅ Agencies pledge planning reforms and flexible backup supply.

One hallmark of an advanced society is a reliable supply of electrical energy for residential, commercial and industrial consumers. Uncertainty that California electricity will be there when we need it it undermines social cohesion and economic progress, as demonstrated by the travails of poor nations with erratic energy supplies.

California got a small dose of that syndrome in mid-August when a record heat wave struck the state and utilities were ordered to impose rolling blackouts to protect the grid from melting down under heavy air conditioning demands.

Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly demanded that the three overseers of electrical service to most of the state - the Public Utilities Commission, the Energy Commission and the California Independent Service Operator – explain what went wrong.

"These blackouts, which occurred without prior warning or enough time for preparation, are unacceptable and unbefitting of the nation's largest and most innovative state," Newsom wrote. "This cannot stand. California residents and businesses deserve better from their government."

Initially, there was some fingerpointing among the three entities. The blackouts had been ordered by the California Independent System Operator, which manages the grid and its president, Steve Berberich, said he had warned the Public Utilities Commission about the potential supply shortfall facing the state.

"We have indicated in filing after filing after filing that the resource adequacy program was broken and needed to be fixed," he said. "The situation we are in could have been avoided."

However, as political heat increased, the three agencies hung together and produced a joint report that admitted to lapses of supply planning and grid management and promised steps to avoid a repeat next summer.

"The existing resource planning processes are not designed to fully address an extreme heat storm like the one experienced in mid August," their report said. "In transitioning to a reliable, clean and affordable resource mix, resource planning targets have not kept pace to lead to sufficient resources that can be relied upon to meet demand in the early evening hours. This makes balancing demand and supply more challenging."

Although California's grid had experienced greater heat-related demands in previous years, most notably 2006, managers then could draw standby power from natural gas-fired plants and import juice from other Western states when necessary.

Since then, the state has shut down a number of gas-fired plants and become more reliant on renewable but less reliable sources such as windmills and solar panels.

August's air conditioning demand peaked just as output from solar panels was declining with the setting of the sun and grid managers couldn't tap enough electrons from other sources to close the gap.

While the shift to renewables didn't, unto itself, cause the blackouts, they proved the need for a bigger cushion of backup generation or power storage in batteries or some other technology. The Public Utilities Commission, as Beberich suggested, has been somewhat lax in ordering development of backup supply.

In the aftermath of the blackouts, the state Water Resources Control Board, no doubt with direction from Newsom's office, postponed planned shutdowns of more coastal plants, which would have reduced supply flexibility even more.

Shifting to 100% renewable electricity, the state's eventual goal, while maintaining reliability will not get any easier. The state's last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, is ticketed for closure and demand will increase as California eliminates gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles in favor of "zero emission vehicles" as part of its climate policies push and phases out natural gas in homes and businesses.

Politicians such as Newsom and legislators in last week's blackout hearing may endorse a carbon-free future in theory, but they know that they'll pay the price as electricity prices climb if nothing happens when Californians flip the switch.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Nuclear Energy Ten Point Plan outlines support for large reactors, SMRs, and AMRs, funding Sizewell C, hydrogen production, and industrial heat to reach net zero, decarbonize transport and heating, and expand clean electricity capacity.

Key Points

A UK plan backing large, small, and advanced reactors to drive net zero via clean power, hydrogen, and industrial heat.

✅ Funds large plants (e.g., Sizewell C) under value-for-money models

✅ Invests in SMRs for factory-built, modular, lower-cost deployment

✅ Backs AMRs for high-temperature heat, hydrogen, and industry

The UK government has just announced its “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”, in which it lays out a vision for the future of energy, transport and nature in the UK. As researchers into nuclear energy, my colleagues and I were pleased to see the plan is rather favourable to new nuclear power.

It follows the advice from the UK’s Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, pledging to pursue large power plants based on current technology, and following that up with financial support for two further waves of reactor technology (“small” and “advanced” modular reactors).

This support is an important part of the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as in the years to come nuclear power will be crucial to decarbonising not just the electricity supply but the whole of society.

This chart helps illustrate the extent of the challenge faced:

Electricity generation is only responsible for a small percentage of UK emissions. William Bodel. Data: UK Climate Change Committee

Efforts to reduce emissions have so far only partially decarbonised the electricity generation sector. Reaching net zero will require immense effort to also decarbonise heating, transport, as well as shipping and aviation. The plan proposes investment in hydrogen production and electric vehicles to address these three areas – which will require, as advocates of nuclear beyond electricity argue, a lot more energy generation.

Nuclear is well-placed to provide a proportion of this energy. Reaching net zero will be a huge challenge, and industry leaders warn it may be unachievable without nuclear energy. So here’s what the announcement means for the three “waves” of nuclear power.

Who will pay for it?
But first a word on financing. To understand the strategy, it is important to realise that the reason there has been so little new activity in the UK’s nuclear sector since the 1990s is due to difficulty in financing. Nuclear plants are cheap to fuel and operate and last for a long time. In theory, this offsets the enormous upfront capital cost, and results in competitively priced electricity overall.

But ever since the electricity sector was privatised, governments have been averse to spending public money on power plants. This, combined with resulting higher borrowing costs and cheaper alternatives (gas power), has meant that in practice nuclear has been sidelined for two decades. While climate change offers an opportunity for a revival, these financial concerns remain.

Large nuclear
Hinkley Point C is a large nuclear station currently under construction in Somerset, England. The project is well-advanced, with its first reactor installed and due to come online in the middle of this decade. While the plant will provide around 7% of current UK electricity demand, its agreed electricity price is relatively expensive.

Under construction: Hinkley Point C. Ben Birchall/PA

The government’s new plan states: “We are pursuing large-scale new nuclear projects, subject to value-for-money.” This is likely a reference to the proposed Sizewell C in Suffolk, on which a final decision is expected soon. Sizewell C would be a copy of the Hinkley plant – building follow-up identical reactors achieves capital cost reductions, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have sharpened delivery focus as an alternative funding model will likely be implemented to reduce financing costs.

Other potential nuclear sites such as Wylfa and Moorside (shelved in 2018 and 2019 respectively for financial reasons) are also not mentioned, their futures presumably also covered by the “subject to value-for-money” clause.

Small nuclear
The next generation of nuclear technology, with various designs under development worldwide are smaller, cheaper, safer Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), such as the Rolls Royce “UK SMR”.

Reactors small enough to be manufactured in factories and delivered as modules can be assembled on site in much shorter times than larger designs, which in contrast are constructed mostly on site. In so doing, the capital costs per unit (and therefore borrowing costs) could be significantly lower than current new-builds.

The plan states “up to £215 million” will be made available for SMRs, Phase 2 of which will begin next year, with anticipated delivery of units around a decade from now.

Advanced nuclear
The third proposed wave of nuclear will be the Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These are truly innovative technologies, with a wide range of benefits over present designs and, like the small reactors, they are modular to keep prices down.

Crucially, advanced reactors operate at much higher temperatures – some promise in excess of 750°C compared to around 300°C in current reactors. This is important as that heat can be used in industrial processes which require high temperatures, such as ceramics, which they currently get through electrical heating or by directly burning fossil fuels. If those ceramics factories could instead use heat from AMRs placed nearby, it would reduce CO₂ emissions from industry (see chart above).

High temperatures can also be used to generate hydrogen, which the government’s plan recognises has the potential to replace natural gas in heating and eventually also in pioneering zero-emission vehicles, ships and aircraft. Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, with the downside of generating CO₂ in the process. A carbon-free alternative involves splitting water using electricity (electrolysis), though this is rather inefficient. More efficient methods which require high temperatures are yet to achieve commercialisation, however if realised, this would make high temperature nuclear particularly useful.

The government is committing “up to £170 million” for AMR research, and specifies a target for a demonstrator plant by the early 2030s. The most promising candidate is likely a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor which is possible, if ambitious, over this timescale. The Chinese currently lead the way with this technology, and their version of this reactor concept is expected soon.

In summary, the plan is welcome news for the nuclear sector, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity across the continent. While it lacks some specifics, these may be detailed in the government’s upcoming Energy White Paper. The advice to government has been acknowledged, and the sums of money mentioned throughout are significant enough to really get started on the necessary research and development.

Achieving net zero is a vast undertaking, and recognising that nuclear can make a substantial contribution if properly supported is an important step towards hitting that target.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US SF6 Emissions Decline as NOAA analysis and EPA mitigation show progress, with atmospheric measurements and Greenhouse Gas Reporting verifying reductions from the electric power grid; sulfur hexafluoride's extreme global warming potential underscores inventory improvements.

Key Points

A documented drop in US sulfur hexafluoride emissions, confirmed by NOAA atmospheric data and EPA reporting reforms.

✅ NOAA towers and aircraft show 2007-2018 decline

✅ EPA reporting and utility mitigation narrowed inventory gaps

✅ Winter leaks and servicing signal further reduction options

A new NOAA analysis shows U.S. emissions of the super-potent greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) have declined between 2007-2018, likely due to successful mitigation efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the electric power industry, with attention to SF6 in the power industry across global markets. 

At the same time, significant disparities that existed previously between NOAA’s estimates, which are based on atmospheric measurements, and EPA’s estimates, which are based on a combination of reported emissions and industrial activity, have narrowed following the establishment of the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The findings, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, also suggest how additional emissions reductions might be achieved. 

SF6 is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high-voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity, and its emissions have been increasing worldwide as electric power systems expand, even as regions hit milestones like California clean energy surpluses in recent years. Smaller amounts of SF6 are used in semiconductor manufacturing and in magnesium production. 

SF6 traps 25,000 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale for equal amounts of emissions, and while CO2 emissions flatlined in 2019 globally, that comparison underscores the potency of SF6. That means a relatively small amount of the gas can have a significant impact on climate warming. Because of its extremely large global warming potential and long atmospheric lifetime, SF6 emissions will influence Earth’s climate for thousands of years.

In this study, researchers from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory, as record greenhouse gas concentrations drive demand for better data, working with colleagues at EPA, CIRES, and the University of Maryland, estimated U.S. SF6 emissions for the first time from atmospheric measurements collected at a network of tall towers and aircraft in NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. The researchers provided an estimate of SF6 emissions independent from the EPA’s estimate, which is based on reported SF6 emissions for some industrial facilities and on estimated SF6 emissions for others.

“We observed differences between our atmospheric estimates and the EPA’s activity-based estimates,” said study lead author Lei Hu, a Global Monitoring Laboratory researcher who was a CIRES scientist at the time of the study. “But by closely collaborating with the EPA, we were able to identify processes potentially responsible for a significant portion of this difference, highlighting ways to improve emission inventories and suggesting additional emission mitigation opportunities, such as forthcoming EPA carbon capture rules for power plants, in the future.” 

In the 1990s, the EPA launched voluntary partnerships with the electric power, where power-sector carbon emissions are falling as generation shifts, magnesium, and semiconductor industries to reduce SF6 emissions after the United States recognized that its emissions were significant. In 2011, large SF6 -emitting facilities were required to begin tracking and reporting their emissions under the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. 

Hu and her colleagues documented a decline of about 60 percent in U.S. SF6 emissions between 2007-2018, amid global declines in coal-fired power in some years—equivalent to a reduction of between 6 and 20 million metric tons of CO2 emissions during that time period—likely due in part to the voluntary emission reduction partnerships and the EPA reporting requirement. A more modest declining trend has also been reported in the EPA’s national inventories submitted annually under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Examining the differences between the NOAA and EPA independent estimates, the researchers found that the EPA’s past inventory analyses likely underestimated SF6 emissions from electrical power transmission and distribution facilities, and from a single SF6 production plant in Illinois. According to Hu, the research collaboration has likely improved the accuracy of the EPA inventories. The 2023 draft of the EPA’s U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021 used the results of this study to support revisions to its estimates of SF6 emissions from electrical transmission and distribution. 

The collaboration may also lead to improvements in the atmosphere-based estimates, helping NOAA identify how to expand or rework its network to better capture emitting industries or areas with significant emissions, according to Steve Montzka, senior scientist at GML and one of the paper’s authors.

Hu and her colleagues also found a seasonal variation in SF6 emissions from the atmosphere-based analysis, with higher emissions in winter than in summer. Industry representatives identified increased servicing of electrical power equipment in the southern states and leakage from aging brittle sealing materials in the equipment in northern states during winter as likely explanations for the enhanced wintertime emissions—findings that suggest opportunities for further emissions reductions.

“This is a great example of the future of greenhouse gas emission tracking, where inventory compilers and atmospheric scientists work together to better understand emissions and shed light on ways to further reduce them,” said Montzka.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News