Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. Completes Acquisition of The Empire District Electric Company

US Electricity Demand Stagnation reflects decoupling from GDP as TVA's IRP revises outlook, with energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and cheap natural gas undercutting coal, reshaping utility business models and accelerating grid modernization.

Key Points

US electricity demand stagnation is flat load growth driven by efficiency, DG, and decoupling from GDP.

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

✅ Efficiency and rooftop solar reduce load growth and capacity needs.

✅ Utilities must pivot to services, DER orchestration, and grid software.

The US electricity sector is in a period of unprecedented change and turmoil, with emerging utility trends reshaping strategies across the industry today. Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes.

In all that bedlam, it’s easy to lose sight of an equally important (if less sexy) trend: Demand for electricity is stagnant.

Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, with COVID-19 electricity demand underscoring recent variability and long-run stagnation, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way. The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became “decoupled”:

This historic shift has wreaked havoc in the utility industry in ways large and small, visible and obscure. Some of that havoc is high-profile and headline-making, as in the recent requests from utilities (and attempts by the Trump administration) to bail out large coal and nuclear plants amid coal and nuclear industry disruptions affecting power markets and reliability.

Some of it, however, is unfolding in more obscure quarters. A great example recently popped up in Tennessee, where one utility is finding its 20-year forecasts rendered archaic almost as soon as they are released.

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

Every five years, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) — the federally owned regional planning agency that, among other things, supplies electricity to Tennessee and parts of surrounding states — develops an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) meant to assess what it requires to meet customer needs for the next 20 years.

The last IRP, completed in 2015, anticipated that there would be no need for major new investment in baseload (coal, nuclear, and hydro) power plants; it foresaw that energy efficiency and distributed (customer-owned) energy generation would hold down demand.

Even so, TVA underestimated. Just three years later, the Times Free Press reports, “TVA now expects to sell 13 percent less power in 2027 than it did two decades earlier — the first sustained reversal in the growth of electricity usage in the 85-year history of TVA.”

TVA will sell less electricity in 10 years than it did 10 years ago. That is bonkers.

This startling shift in prospects has prompted the company to accelerate its schedule. It will now develop its next IRP a year early, in 2019.

Think for a moment about why a big utility like TVA (serving 9 million customers in seven states, with more than $11 billion in revenue) sets out to plan 20 years ahead. It is investing in extremely large and capital-intensive infrastructure like power plants and transmission lines, which cost billions of dollars and last for decades. These are not decisions to make lightly; the utility wants to be sure that they will still be needed, and will still pay off, for many years to come.

Now think for a moment about what it means for the electricity sector to be changing so fast that TVA’s projections are out of date three years after its last IRP, so much so that it needs to plunge back into the multimillion-dollar, year-long process of developing a new plan.

TVA wanted a plan for 20 years; the plan lasted three.

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

TVA, as a government-owned, fully regulated utility, has only the goals of “low cost, informed risk, environmental responsibility, reliability, diversity of power and flexibility to meet changing market conditions,” as its planning manager told the Times Free Press. (Yes, that’s already a lot of goals!)

But investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which administer electricity for well over half of Americans, face another imperative: to make money for investors. They can’t make money selling electricity; monopoly regulations forbid it, raising questions about utility revenue models as marginal energy costs fall. Instead, they make money by earning a rate of return on investments in electrical power plants and infrastructure.

The problem is, with demand stagnant, there’s not much need for new hardware. And a drop in investment means a drop in profit. Unable to continue the steady growth that their investors have always counted on, IOUs are treading water, watching as revenues dry up

Utilities have been frantically adjusting to this new normal. The generation utilities that sell into wholesale electricity markets (also under pressure from falling power prices; thanks to natural gas and renewables, wholesale power prices are down 70 percent from 2007) have reacted by cutting costs and merging. The regulated utilities that administer local distribution grids have responded by increasing investments in those grids, including efforts to improve electricity reliability and resilience at lower cost.

But these are temporary, limited responses, not enough to stay in business in the face of long-term decline in demand. Ultimately, deeper reforms will be necessary.

As I have explained at length, the US utility sector was built around the presumption of perpetual growth. Utilities were envisioned as entities that would build the electricity infrastructure to safely and affordably meet ever-rising demand, which was seen as a fixed, external factor, outside utility control.

But demand is no longer rising. What the US needs now are utilities that can manage and accelerate that decline in demand, increasing efficiency as they shift to cleaner generation. The new electricity paradigm is to match flexible, diverse, low-carbon supply with (increasingly controllable) demand, through sophisticated real-time sensing and software.

That’s simply a different model than current utilities are designed for. To adapt, the utility business model must change. Utilities need newly defined responsibilities and new ways to make money, through services rather than new hardware. That kind of reform will require regulators, politicians, and risky experiments. Very few states — New York, California, Massachusetts, a few others — have consciously set off down that path.

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

Even if natural gas and renewables weren’t roiling the sector, the end of demand growth would eventually force utility reform.

To be clear: For both economic and environmental reasons, it is good that US power demand has decoupled from GDP growth. As long as we’re getting the energy services we need, we want overall demand to decline. It saves money, reduces pollution, and avoids the need for expensive infrastructure.

But the way we’ve set up utilities, they must fight that trend. Every time they are forced to invest in energy efficiency or make some allowance for distributed generation (and they must always be forced), demand for their product declines, and with it their justification to make new investments.

Only when the utility model fundamentally changes — when utilities begin to see themselves primarily as architects and managers of high-efficiency, low-emissions, multidirectional electricity systems rather than just investors in infrastructure growth — can utilities turn in earnest to the kind planning they need to be doing.

In a climate-aligned world, utilities would view the decoupling of power demand from GDP growth as cause for celebration, a sign of success. They would throw themselves into accelerating the trend.

Instead, utilities find themselves constantly surprised, caught flat-footed again and again by a trend they desperately want to believe is temporary. Unless we can collectively reorient utilities to pursue rather than fear current trends in electricity, they are headed for a grim reckoning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Bill Redesign Spending sparks debate over Ontario Energy Board regulation, rate applications, privatization, and digital billing upgrades, as surveys cite confusing invoices under the Fair Hydro Plan for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.

Key Points

$15M project to simplify Hydro One bills, upgrade systems, and improve digital billing for commercial customers.

✅ $9M spent; $6M proposed for C&I and large-account changes.

✅ OEB to rule amid rate application and privatization scrutiny.

✅ Survey: 40% of customers struggled to understand bills.

Ontario's largest and recently privatized electricity utility has spent $9-million to redesign bills and is proposing to spend an additional $6-million on the project.

Hydro One has come under fire for spending since the Liberal government sold more than half of the company, notably for its CEO's $4.5-million pay.

Now, the NDP is raising concerns with the $15-million bill redesign expense contained in a rate application from the formerly public utility.

"I don't think the problem we face is a bill that people can't understand, I think the problem is rates that are too high," said energy critic Peter Tabuns. "Fifteen million dollars seems awfully expensive to me."

But Hydro One says a 2016 survey of its customers indicated about 40 per cent had trouble understanding their bills.

Ferio Pugliese, the company's executive vice-president of customer care and corporate affairs, said the redesign was aimed at giving customers a simpler bill.

"The new format is a format that when tested and put in front of our customers has been designed to give customers the four or five salient items they want to see on their bill," he said.

About $9-million has already gone into redesigning bills, mostly for residential customers, Pugliese said. Cosmetic changes to bills account for about 25 per cent of the cost, with the rest of the money going toward updating information systems and improving digital billing platforms, he said.

The additional $6-million Hydro One is looking to spend would go toward bill changes mostly for its commercial, industrial and large distribution account customers.

Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault noted in a statement that the Ontario Energy Board has yet to decide on the expense, but he suggested he sees the bill redesign as necessary alongside legislation to lower electricity rates introduced by the province.

"With Ontarians wanting clearer bills that are easier to understand, Hydro One's bill redesign project is a necessary improvement that will help customers," he wrote.

"Reductions from the Fair Hydro Plan (the government's 25 per cent cut to bills last year) are important information for both households and businesses, and it's our job to provide clear, helpful answers whenever possible."

The OEB recently ordered Hydro One to lower a rate increase it had been seeking for this year to 0.2 per cent down from 4.8 per cent.

The regulator also rejected a Hydro One proposal to give shareholders all of the tax savings generated by the IPO in 2015 when the Liberal government first began partially privatizing the utility. The OEB instead mandated shareholders receive 62 per cent of the savings while ratepayers receive the remaining 38 per cent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New York Solar Milestone accelerates renewable energy adoption, meeting targets early with 8,000 MW capacity powering 1.1 million homes, boosting green jobs, community solar, battery storage, and grid reliability under the CLCPA clean energy framework.

Key Points

It is New York achieving its solar goal early, powering 1.1M homes and advancing CLCPA renewable targets.

✅ 8,000 MW installed, enough to power about 1.1M homes

✅ CLCPA targets: 70 percent renewables by 2030

✅ Community solar, storage, and green jobs scaling statewide

In a remarkable display of commitment to renewable energy, New York has achieved its solar energy targets a year ahead of schedule, marking a significant milestone in the state's clean energy journey, and aligning with a national trend where renewables reached a record 28% in April nationwide. With the addition of solar power capacity capable of powering over a million homes, New York is not just setting the pace for solar adoption but is also establishing itself as a leader in the fight against climate change.

A Commitment to Renewable Energy

New York’s ambitious clean energy agenda is part of a broader effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to sustainable energy sources. The state's goal, established under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), aims for 70% of its electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030. With the recent advancements in solar energy, including contracts for 23 renewable projects totaling 2.3 GW, New York is well on its way to achieving that goal, demonstrating that aggressive policy frameworks can lead to tangible results.

The Numbers Speak for Themselves

As of now, New York has successfully installed more than 8,000 megawatts (MW) of solar energy capacity, supported by large-scale energy projects underway across New York that are expanding the grid. This achievement translates to enough electricity to power approximately 1.1 million homes, showcasing the state's investment in harnessing the sun’s power. The rapid expansion of solar installations reflects both increasing consumer interest and supportive policies that facilitate growth in the renewable energy sector.

Economic Benefits and Job Creation

The surge in solar energy capacity has not only environmental implications but also significant economic benefits. The solar industry in New York has become a substantial job creator, employing tens of thousands of individuals across various sectors. From manufacturing solar panels to installation and maintenance, the job opportunities associated with this growth are diverse and vital for local economies.

Moreover, as solar installations increase, the state benefits from reduced electricity costs over time. By investing in renewable energy, New York is paving the way for a more resilient and sustainable energy future, while simultaneously providing economic opportunities for its residents.

Community Engagement and Accessibility

New York's solar success is also tied to its efforts to engage communities and increase access to renewable energy. Initiatives such as community solar programs allow residents who may not have the means or space to install solar panels on their homes to benefit from solar energy. These programs provide an inclusive approach, ensuring that low-income households and underserved communities have access to clean energy solutions.

The state has also implemented various incentives to encourage solar adoption, including tax credits, rebates, and financing options. These efforts not only promote environmental sustainability but also aim to make solar energy more accessible to all New Yorkers, furthering the commitment to equity in the energy transition.

Innovations and Future Prospects

New York's solar achievements are complemented by ongoing innovations in technology and energy storage solutions. The integration of battery storage systems is becoming increasingly important, reflecting growth in solar and storage in the coming years, and allowing for the capture and storage of solar energy for use during non-sunny periods. This technology enhances grid reliability and supports the state’s goal of transitioning to a fully sustainable energy system.

Looking ahead, New York aims to continue this momentum. The state is exploring additional strategies to increase renewable energy capacity, including plans to investigate sites for offshore wind across its coastline, and other clean energy technologies. By diversifying its renewable energy portfolio, New York is positioning itself to meet and even exceed future energy demands while reducing its carbon footprint.

A Model for Other States

New York’s success story serves as a model for other states aiming to enhance their renewable energy capabilities, with its approval of the biggest offshore wind farm underscoring that leadership. The combination of strong policy frameworks, community engagement, and technological innovation can inspire similar initiatives nationwide. As more states look to address climate change, New York’s proactive approach can provide valuable insights into effective strategies for solar energy deployment.

New York’s achievement of its solar energy goals a year ahead of schedule is a testament to the state's unwavering commitment to sustainability and renewable energy. With the capacity to power over a million homes, this milestone not only signifies progress in clean energy adoption but also highlights the potential for economic growth and community engagement. As New York continues on its path toward a greener future, and stays on the road to 100% renewables by mid-century, it sets a powerful example for others to follow, proving that ambitious renewable energy goals can indeed become a reality.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

FPL Hurricane Surcharge explained: restoration costs, Florida PSC review, rate impacts, grid resilience, and transparency after Hurricanes Debby and Helene as FPL funds infrastructure hardening and rapid storm recovery across Florida.

Key Points

A fee by Florida Power & Light to recoup hurricane restoration costs, under Florida PSC review for consumer fairness.

✅ Funds Debby and Helene restoration, materials, and crews

✅ Reviewed by Florida PSC for consumer protection and fairness

✅ Raises questions on grid resilience, transparency, and renewables

In the aftermath of recent hurricanes, Florida Power & Light (FPL) is under scrutiny as it implements a rate surcharge, alongside proposed rate hikes that span multiple years, to help cover the costs of restoration and recovery efforts. The surcharges, attributed to Hurricanes Debby and Helene, have stirred significant debate among consumers and state regulators, highlighting the ongoing challenges of hurricane preparedness and response in the Sunshine State.

Hurricanes are a regular threat in Florida, and FPL, as the state's largest utility provider, plays a critical role in restoring power and services after such events. However, the financial implications of these natural disasters often leave residents questioning the fairness and necessity of additional charges on their monthly bills. The newly proposed surcharge, which is expected to affect millions of customers, has ignited discussions about the adequacy of the company’s infrastructure investments and its responsibility in disaster recovery.

FPL’s decision to implement a surcharge comes as the company faces rising operational costs due to extensive damage caused by the hurricanes. Restoration efforts are not only labor-intensive but also require significant investment in materials and equipment to restore power swiftly and efficiently. With the added pressures of increased demand for electricity during peak hurricane seasons, utilities like FPL must navigate complex financial landscapes, similar to Snohomish PUD's weather-related rate hikes seen in other regions, while ensuring reliable service.

Consumer advocacy groups have raised concerns over the timing and justification for the surcharge. Many argue that frequent rate increases following natural disasters can strain already financially burdened households, echoing pandemic-related shutoff concerns raised during COVID that heightened energy insecurity. Florida residents are already facing inflationary pressures and rising living costs, making additional surcharges particularly difficult for many to absorb. Critics assert that utility companies should prioritize transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to costs incurred during emergencies.

The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), which regulates utility rates and services, even as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills elsewhere, is tasked with reviewing the surcharge proposal. The commission’s role is crucial in determining whether the surcharge is justified and in line with the interests of consumers. As part of this process, stakeholders—including FPL, consumer advocacy groups, and the general public—will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns. This input is essential in ensuring that the commission makes an informed decision that balances the utility’s financial needs with consumer protection.

In recent years, FPL has invested heavily in strengthening its infrastructure to better withstand hurricane impacts. These investments include hardening power lines, enhancing grid resilience, and implementing advanced technologies for quicker recovery, with public outage prevention tips also promoted to enhance preparedness. However, as storms become increasingly severe due to climate change, the question arises: are these measures sufficient? Critics argue that more proactive measures are needed to mitigate the impacts of future storms and reduce the reliance on post-disaster rate increases.

Additionally, the conversation around climate resilience is becoming increasingly prominent in discussions about energy policy in Florida. As extreme weather events grow more common, utilities are under pressure to innovate and adapt their systems. Some experts suggest that FPL and other utilities should explore alternative strategies, such as investing in decentralized energy resources like solar and battery storage, even as Florida declined federal solar incentives that could accelerate adoption, which could provide more reliable service during outages and reduce the overall strain on the grid.

The issue of rate surcharges also highlights a broader conversation about the energy landscape in Florida. With a growing emphasis on renewable energy and sustainability, consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental impacts of their energy choices, and some recall a one-time Gulf Power bill decrease as an example of short-term relief. This shift in consumer awareness may push utilities like FPL to reevaluate their business models and explore more sustainable practices that align with the public’s evolving expectations.

As FPL navigates the complexities of hurricane recovery and financial sustainability, the impending surcharge serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by utility providers in a climate-volatile world. While the need for recovery funding is undeniable, the manner in which it is implemented and communicated will be crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring fair treatment of consumers. As discussions unfold in the coming weeks, all eyes will be on the PSC’s decision and FPL’s approach to balancing recovery efforts with consumer affordability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CAISO Net Negative Emissions signal moments when greenhouse gas intensity of serving ISO demand drops below zero, driven by high renewable generation, low load, strong solar exports, and imports accounting in the California grid.

Key Points

Moments when CAISO's CO2 to serve demand is below zero, driven by renewables, exports, and import accounting.

✅ Calculated using imports and exports to serve ISO demand

✅ Occur during high solar output, low weekend load

✅ Coincide with curtailment and record renewable penetration

We’re a long way from the land of milk and honey, but on Easter Sunday – for about an hour – we got a taste.

On Sunday, at 1:55 PM Pacific Time the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) reported that greenhouse gas emissions necessary to serve its demand (~80% of California’s electricity demand on an annual basis), was measured at a rate -16 metric tons of CO2 per hour. Five minutes later, the value was -2 mTCO2/h, before it crept back up to 40 mTCO2/h at 2:05 PM PST. At 2:10 PST though it fell back to -86 mTCO2/h and stayed negative until 3:05 PM PST, even as global CO2 emissions flatlined in 2019 according to the IEA.

This information was brought to the attention of pv magazine via tweet from eagle eye Jon Pa after CAISO’s site first noted the negative values:

The region was still generating CO2 though, as natural gas, biogas, biomass, geothermal and even coal plants were running and pumping out emissions, even as potent greenhouse gases declined in the US under control efforts. CAISO’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracking Methodology, December 28, 2016 (pdf) notes the below calculations to create the value what it terms, “Total GHG emissions to serve ISO demand”:

Of importance to note is that to get to the net negative value, CAISO considered all electricity imports and exports, a reminder that climate policy shapes grid operations across North America. And as can be noted in the image below the CO2 intensity of imports during the day rapidly declined as the sun came up, first going negative around 9:05 AM PST, and mostly staying so until just before 6 PM PST.

During this same weekend, other records were noted (reiterating that we’re in record setting season and as the state pursues its 100% carbon-free mandate now in law) such as a new electricity export record of greater than 2 GW and total renewable electricity as part of total demand at greater than 70%.

At the peak negative moment of 2:15 PM PST, -112 mTCO2/h seen below, the total amount of clean instantaneous generation being used in the power grid region was 17 GW, a far cry from heat-driven reliability strains like rolling blackout warnings that arise during extreme demand, with renewables giving 76% of the total, hydro 14%, nuclear 13% and imports of -12% countering the CO2 coming from just over 1.4 GW of gas generation.

Also of importance are a few layers of nuance in the electricity demand charts. First off we’re in the shoulder seasons  of California – nice cool weather before the warmth of summer drives air conditioning demand. Additional the weekend electricity demand is always lower, as well, Easter Sunday might have had an affect, whereas in colder regions Calgary’s electricity use can soar during frigid snaps.

Lastly to note was the amount of electricity from solar and wind generation being curtailed. And while the Sunday numbers weren’t available yet, the below image noted Saturday with 10 GWh in total being curtailed (pdf) – peaking at over 3.2 GW of instantaneous mostly solar power even as solar is now the cheapest electricity according to the IEA, in the hours of 2 and 3 PM PST. On an annualized basis, less than 2% of total potential solar electricity was curtailed in 2018.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Noncarbon Electricity Investment Strategy helps utilities hedge policy uncertainty, carbon tax risks, and emissions limits by scaling wind, solar, and CCS, avoiding stranded assets while balancing costs, reliability, and climate policy over decades.

Key Points

A strategy for utilities to invest 20-30 percent of capacity in low carbon sources to hedge emissions and carbon risks.

✅ Hedges future carbon tax and emissions limits

✅ Targets 20-30 percent of new generation from clean sources

✅ Reduces stranded asset risk and builds renewables capacity

When utility executives make decisions about building new power plants, a lot rides on their choices. Depending on their size and type, new generating facilities cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. They typically will run for 40 or more years — 10 U.S. presidential terms. Much can change during that time.

Today one of the biggest dilemmas that regulators and electricity industry planners face is predicting how strict future limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be. Future policies will affect the profitability of today’s investments. For example, if the United States adopts a carbon tax 10 years from now, it could make power plants that burn fossil fuels less profitable, or even insolvent.

These investment choices also affect consumers. In South Carolina, utilities were allowed to charge their customers higher rates to cover construction costs for two new nuclear reactors, which have now been abandoned because of construction delays and weak electricity demand. Looking forward, if utilities are reliant on coal plants instead of solar and wind, it will be much harder and more expensive for them to meet future emissions targets, even as New Zealand's electrification push accelerates abroad. They will pass the costs of complying with these targets on to customers in the form of higher electricity prices.

With so much uncertainty about future policy, how much should we be investing in noncarbon electricity generation in the next decade? In a recent study, we proposed optimal near-term electricity investment strategies to hedge against risks and manage inherent uncertainties about the future.

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, 20 to 30 percent of new generation in the coming decade should be from noncarbon sources such as wind and solar energy across markets. For most U.S. electricity providers, this strategy would mean increasing their investments in noncarbon power sources, regardless of the current administration’s position on climate change.

Many noncarbon electricity sources — including wind, solar, nuclear power and coal or natural gas with carbon capture and storage — are more expensive than conventional coal and natural gas plants. Even wind power, which is often mentioned as competitive, is actually more costly when accounting for costs such as backup generation and energy storage to ensure that power is available when wind output is low.

Over the past decade, federal tax incentives and state policies designed to promote clean electricity sources spurred many utilities to invest in noncarbon sources. Now the Trump administration is shifting federal policy back toward promoting fossil fuels. But it can still make economic sense for power companies to invest in more expensive noncarbon technologies if we consider the potential impact of future policies.

How much should companies invest to hedge against the possibility of future greenhouse gas limits? On one hand, if they invest too much in noncarbon generation and the federal government adopts only weak climate policies throughout the investment period, utilities will overspend on expensive energy sources.

On the other hand, if they invest too little in noncarbon generation and future administrations adopt stringent emissions targets, utilities will have to replace high-carbon energy sources with cleaner substitutes, which could be extremely costly.

Economic modeling with uncertainty

We conducted a quantitative analysis to determine how to balance these two concerns and find an optimal investment strategy given uncertainty about future emissions limits. This is a core choice that power companies have to make when they decide what kinds of plants to build.

First we developed a computational model that represents the sectors of the U.S. economy, including electric power. Then we embedded it within a computer program that evaluates decisions in the electric power sector under policy uncertainty.

The model explores different electric power investment decisions under a wide range of future emissions limits with different probabilities of being implemented. For each decision/policy combination, it computes and compares economy-wide costs over two investment periods extending from 2015 to 2030.

We looked at costs across the economy because emissions policies impose costs on consumers and producers as well as power companies. For example, they may lead to higher electricity, fuel or product prices. By seeking to minimize economy-wide costs, our model identifies the investment decision that produces the greatest overall benefits to society.

More investments in clean generation make economic sense

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, the optimal investment strategy for the coming decade is for 20 to 30 percent of new generation to be from noncarbon sources. Our model identified this as the best level because it best positions the United States to meet a wide range of possible future policies at a low cost to the economy.

From 2005-2015, we calculated that about 19 percent of the new generation that came online was from noncarbon sources. Our findings indicate that power companies should put a larger share of their money into noncarbon investments in the coming decade.

While increasing noncarbon investments from a 19 percent share to a 20 to 30 percent share of new generation may seem like a modest change, it actually requires a considerable increase in noncarbon investment dollars. This is especially true since power companies will need to replace dozens of aging coal-fired power plants that are expected to be retired.

In general, society will bear greater costs if power companies underinvest in noncarbon technologies than if they overinvest. If utilities build too much noncarbon generation but end up not needing it to meet emissions limits, they can and will still use it fully. Sunshine and wind are free, so generators can produce electricity from these sources with low operating costs.

In contrast, if the United States adopts strict emissions limits within a decade or two, they could prevent carbon-intensive generation built today from being used. Those plants would become “stranded assets” — investments that are obsolete far earlier than expected, and are a drain on the economy.

Investing early in noncarbon technologies has another benefit: It helps develop the capacity and infrastructure needed to quickly expand noncarbon generation. This would allow energy companies to comply with future emissions policies at lower costs.

Seeing beyond one president

The Trump administration is working to roll back Obama-era climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan, and to implement policies that favor fossil generation. But these initiatives should alter the optimal strategy that we have proposed for power companies only if corporate leaders expect Trump’s policies to persist over the 40 years or more that these new generating plants can be expected to run.

Energy executives would need to be extremely confident that, despite investor pressure from shareholders, the United States will adopt only weak climate policies, or none at all, into future decades in order to see cutting investments in noncarbon generation as an optimal near-term strategy. Instead, they may well expect that the United States will eventually rejoin worldwide efforts to slow the pace of climate change and adopt strict emissions limits.

In that case, they should allocate their investments so that at least 20 to 30 percent of new generation over the next decade comes from noncarbon sources. Sustaining and increasing noncarbon investments in the coming decade is not just good for the environment — it’s also a smart business strategy that is good for the economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News