Canada’s Opportunity in the Global Electricity Market

Canada Electricity Grid Decarbonization advances net-zero goals by expanding renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro), boosting grid reliability with battery storage, and aligning policy, efficiency, and investment to cut emissions and strengthen energy security.

Key Points

Canada's shift to low-carbon power using renewables and storage to cut emissions and improve grid reliability.

✅ Invest in wind, solar, hydro, and transmission upgrades

✅ Deploy battery storage to balance intermittent generation

✅ Support just transition, jobs, and energy efficiency

As Canada moves towards a more sustainable future, decarbonizing its electricity grid has emerged as a pivotal goal. The transition aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy sources, and ultimately support global climate targets, with cleaning up Canada's electricity widely viewed as critical to meeting those pledges. However, the implications of this transition are multifaceted, impacting the economy, energy reliability, and the lives of Canadians.

Understanding Decarbonization

Decarbonization refers to the process of reducing carbon emissions produced from various sources, primarily fossil fuels. In Canada, the electricity grid is heavily reliant on natural gas, coal, and oil, which contribute significantly to carbon emissions. The Canadian government has committed to achieving net-zero by 2050 through federal and provincial collaboration, with the electricity sector playing a crucial role in this initiative. The strategy includes increasing the use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.

Economic Considerations

Transitioning to a decarbonized electricity grid presents both challenges and opportunities for Canada’s economy. On one hand, the initial costs of investing in renewable energy infrastructure can be substantial. This includes not only the construction of renewable energy plants but also the necessary upgrades to the grid to accommodate new technologies. According to the Fraser Institute analysis, these investments could lead to increased electricity prices, impacting consumers and businesses alike.

However, the shift to a decarbonized grid can also stimulate economic growth. The renewable energy sector is a rapidly growing industry that, as Canada’s race to net-zero accelerates, promises job creation in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of renewable technologies. Moreover, as technological advancements reduce the cost of renewable energy, the long-term savings on fuel costs can benefit both consumers and businesses. The challenge lies in balancing these economic factors to ensure a smooth transition.

Reliability and Energy Security

A significant concern regarding the decarbonization of the electricity grid is maintaining reliability and energy security, especially as an IEA report indicates Canada will need substantially more electricity to achieve net-zero goals, requiring careful system planning.

To address this challenge, the implementation of energy storage solutions and grid enhancements will be essential. Advances in battery technology and energy storage systems can help manage supply and demand effectively, ensuring that energy remains available even during periods of low renewable output. Additionally, integrating a diverse mix of energy sources, including hydroelectric power, can enhance the reliability of the grid.

Social Impacts

The decarbonization process also carries significant social implications. Communities that currently depend on fossil fuel industries may face economic challenges as the transition progresses, and the Canadian Gas Association has warned of potential economy-wide costs for switching to electricity, underscoring the need for a just transition.

Furthermore, there is a need for public engagement and education on the benefits and challenges of decarbonization. Canadians must understand how changes in energy policy will affect their daily lives, from electricity prices to job opportunities. Fostering a sense of community involvement can help build support for renewable energy initiatives and ensure that diverse voices are heard in the planning process.

Policy Recommendations

For Canada to successfully decarbonize its electricity grid, and building on recent electricity progress across provinces nationwide, robust and forward-thinking policies must be implemented. This includes investment in research and development to advance renewable technologies and improve energy storage solutions. Additionally, policies should encourage public-private partnerships to share the financial burden of infrastructure investments.

Governments at all levels should also promote energy efficiency measures to reduce overall demand, making the transition more manageable. Incentives for consumers to adopt renewable energy solutions, such as solar panels, can further accelerate the shift towards a decarbonized grid.

Decarbonizing Canada's electricity grid presents a complex yet necessary challenge. While there are economic, reliability, and social considerations to navigate, the potential benefits of a cleaner, more sustainable energy future are substantial. By implementing thoughtful policies and fostering community engagement, Canada can lead the way in creating an electricity grid that not only meets the needs of its citizens but also contributes to global efforts in combating climate change.

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

Cooperative Energy bond rating upgrade signals lower debt costs as Fitch lifts GO Zone Bonds to A, reflecting Kemper exit, shift to owned generation, natural gas, and renewable energy for co-op members and borrowing rates.

Key Points

Fitch raised Cooperative Energy's GO Zone Bonds to A, cutting debt costs after Kemper exit and shift to natural gas.

✅ Fitch upgrades 2009A GO Zone Bonds from A- to A.

✅ Kemper divestment reduced risk and exposure to coal.

✅ Shift to owned generation, natural gas, renewables lowers costs.

Cooperative Energy and its 11 co-op members will see lower debt costs on $35.4 million bond; similar to regional utilities offering one-time bill decreases for customers recently.

Bailing out of its 15 percent ownership stake in Mississippi Power’s Kemper gasification plant, amid debates over coal and nuclear subsidies in federal policy, has helped Hattiesburg-based Cooperative Energy gain a ratings upgrade on a $35.4 million bond issue.

The electric power co-op, which changed its name to Cooperative Energy from South Mississippi Electric Power Association in November, received a ratings upgrade from A- to A for its 2009 2009A Mississippi Business Finance Corporation Gulf Opportunity Zone Bonds, even as other utilities announced bill reductions for customers during 2020.

“This rating upgrade reflects the success of our strategy to move from purchased power to owned generation resources, and from coal to natural gas and renewable energy as clean energy priorities gain traction,” said Cooperative Energy President/CEO Jim Compton in a press release.  “The result for our members is lower borrowing costs and more favorable rates.”

An “A” rating from Fitch designates the bond issue as “near premium quality,” a status noted as utilities adapted to pandemic-era electricity demand trends nationwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Clean Energy Transition accelerates via carbon pricing, renewables, EV incentives, energy efficiency upgrades, smart grids, interprovincial transmission, and innovation in hydro, wind, solar, and storage to cut emissions and power sustainable growth.

Key Points

Canada Clean Energy Transition is a shift to renewables, EVs and efficiency powered by smart policy and innovation.

✅ Carbon pricing and EV incentives accelerate adoption

✅ Grid upgrades, storage, and transmission expand renewables

✅ Industry efficiency and smart tech cut energy waste

So, how do we get there?

We're already on our way.

The final weeks of 2016 delivered some progress, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and premiers of 11 of the 13 provinces and territories negotiated a new national climate plan. The deal is a game changer. It marks the moment that Canada stopped arguing about whether to tackle climate change and started figuring out how we're going to get there.

We can each be part of the solution by reducing the amount of energy we use, making sure our homes and workplaces are well insulated and choosing energy efficient appliances. When the time comes to upgrade our cars, washing machines and refrigerators, we can take advantage of rebates that cut the cost of electric models. In our homes, we can install smart technology — like automated thermostats — to cut down on energy waste and reduce power bills.

Even industries that use a lot of energy, like mining and manufacturing, could become leaders in sustainability. It would mean investing in energy saving technology, making their operations more efficient and running conveyor belts, robots and other equipment off locally produced renewable electricity.

Meanwhile, laboratories and factories in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia are making breakthroughs in areas like energy storage, while renewable energy growth in the Prairie Provinces gathers momentum, which will make it possible to access clean power even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau holds a copy of his environmental platform after announcing details of it at Jericho Beach Park in Vancouver, B.C., on Monday June 29, 2015. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

The scale and speed of Canada's transition to clean energy depends on provincial and federal policies that do things like tax carbon pollution, build interprovincial electricity transmission lines, invest in renewable energy and grid modernization projects that strengthen the system, and increase incentives for electric vehicles. 

Of course, even the best policies won't produce lasting results unless Canadians fight for them and take ownership for our role in the energy transition. Global momentum toward clean energy may be "irreversible," as former U.S. President Barack Obama recently wrote in the journal Science — but it's up to us whether Canada catches that wave or misses out.

Fortunately, clean energy has always been part of Canada's DNA.

We can learn from the past

In remote corners of the newly minted Dominion of Canada, rushing rivers turned the waterwheels that powered the lumber mills that built the places we inhabit today. The first electric lights were switched on in Winnipeg shortly after Confederation. By the turn of the 20th century, hydro power was lighting up towns and cities from coast to coast.  

Our country is home to some of the world's best clean energy resources, and experts note that zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is possible given our strengths, and fully two-thirds of our power is generated from renewable sources like hydro, wind and solar.

Looking to our heritage, we can make clean growth the next chapter in Canada's history

Recent commitments to phase out coal and invest in clean energy infrastructure mean the share of renewable power in Canada's energy mix is poised to grow. The global shift from fossil fuels to clean energy is opening up huge opportunities and Canada's opportunity in the global electricity market is growing as the country has the expertise to deliver solutions around the world.

Looking to our heritage, we can make clean growth the next chapter in Canada's history — building a nation that's electric, connected and on a practical, profitable path to 2035 zero-emission power for households and industry, stronger than ever.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

FERC Rejects Trump Coal Plan, denying subsidies for coal-fired and nuclear plants as energy policy shifts toward natural gas and renewables, citing no grid reliability threat and warning about electricity prices and market impacts.

Key Points

FERC unanimously rejected subsidies for coal and nuclear plants, finding no grid reliability risk from retirements.

✅ Unanimous FERC vote rejects coal and nuclear compensation

✅ Cites no threat to grid reliability from plant retirements

✅ Opponents warned subsidies would distort power markets and prices

A decision by an independent energy agency to reject the Trump administration’s electricity pricing plan to bolster the coal industry could lead to more closures of coal-fired power plants and the loss of thousands of jobs, a top coal executive said Tuesday.

Robert Murray, CEO of Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp., called the action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “a bureaucratic cop-out” that will raise the cost of electricity and jeopardize the reliability and security of the nation’s electric grid.

“While FERC commissioners sit on their hands and refuse to take the action directed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry and President Donald Trump, the decommissioning of more coal-fired and nuclear plants could result, further jeopardizing the reliability, resiliency and security of America’s electric power grids,” Murray said. “It will also raise the cost of electricity for all Americans.”

The five-member energy commission voted unanimously Monday to reject Trump’s plan to reward nuclear and coal-fired power plants for adding reliability to the nation’s power grid. The plan would have made the plants eligible for billions of dollars in government subsidies and help reverse a tide of bankruptcies and loss of market share suffered by the once-dominant coal industry as utilities' shift to natural gas and renewable energy continues.

The Republican-controlled commission said there’s no evidence that any past or planned retirements of coal-fired power plants pose a threat to reliability of the nation’s electric grid.

Murray disputed that and said the recent cold snap that hit the East Coast showed coal’s value, as power users in the Southeast were asked to cut back on electricity usage because of a shortage of natural gas. “If it were not for the electricity generated by our nation’s coal-fired and nuclear power plants, we would be experiencing massive brownouts risk and blackouts in this country,” he said.

Murray Energy is the largest privately owned coal company in the United States, with mining operations in Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Utah and West Virginia. Robert Murray, a Trump friend and political supporter, has been pushing hard for federal assistance for his industry. The Associated Press reported last year that Murray asked the Trump administration to issue an emergency order protecting coal-fired power plants from closing. Murray warned that failure to act could cause thousands of coal miners to be laid off and force his largest customer, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Solutions, into bankruptcy.

Perry ultimately rejected Murray’s request, but later asked energy regulators to boost coal and nuclear plants as the administration moved to replace the Clean Power Plan with a more limited approach.

The plan drew widespread opposition from business and environmental groups that frequently disagree with each other, even as some coal and business interests backed the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule in court.

Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said Tuesday that the Trump plan was “far too narrow” in its focus on power sources that maintain a 90-day fuel supply.

API, the largest lobbying group for oil and gas industry, supports coal and other energy sources, Gerard said, “but we should not put our eggs in an individual basket defined as a 90-day fuel supply (while) unnecessarily intervening in private markets.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Energy Demand Decline reflects economic stagnation, IEA forecasts, and the Energiewende, as industrial output slips and efficiency gains, renewables growth, and cost-cutting reduce fossil fuel use while reshaping sustainability and energy security.

Key Points

A projected 7% drop in German energy use driven by industrial slowdown, efficiency gains, and renewables expansion.

✅ IEA projects up to 7% demand drop in the next year

✅ Industrial slowdown and efficiency programs cut consumption

✅ Energiewende shifts mix to wind, solar, and less fossil fuel

Germany is on the verge of experiencing a significant decline in energy demand, with forecasts suggesting that usage could hit a record low as the country grapples with economic stagnation. This shift highlights not only the immediate impacts of sluggish economic growth but also broader trends in energy consumption, Europe's electricity markets, sustainability, and the transition to renewable resources.

Recent data indicate that Germany's economy is facing substantial challenges, including high inflation and reduced industrial output. As companies struggle to maintain profitability amid nearly doubled power prices and rising costs, many have begun to cut back on energy consumption. This retrenchment is particularly pronounced in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing and chemical production, which are crucial to Germany's export-driven economy.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has projected that German energy demand could decline by as much as 7% in the coming year, a stark contrast to the trends seen in previous decades. This decline is primarily driven by a combination of factors, including reduced industrial activity, increased energy efficiency measures, and a shift toward alternative energy sources, as well as mounting pressures on local utilities to stay solvent. The current economic landscape has led businesses to prioritize cost-cutting measures, including energy efficiency initiatives aimed at reducing consumption.

In the context of these developments, Germany’s energy transition—known as the "Energiewende"—is becoming increasingly significant. The country has made substantial investments in renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass in recent years. As energy efficiency improves and the share of renewables in the energy mix rises, traditional fossil fuel consumption has begun to wane. This transition is seen as both a response to climate change and a strategy for energy independence, particularly in light of geopolitical tensions and Europe's wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the continent.

However, the current stagnation presents a paradox for the German energy sector. While lower energy demand may ease some pressures on supply and prices, it also raises concerns about the long-term viability of investments in renewable energy infrastructure, even as debates continue over electricity subsidies for industry to support competitiveness. The economic slowdown has the potential to derail progress made in reducing carbon emissions and achieving energy targets, particularly if it leads to decreased investment in green technologies.

Another layer to this issue is the potential impact on employment within the energy sector. As energy demand decreases, there may be a ripple effect on jobs tied to traditional energy production and even in renewable energy sectors if investment slows. Policymakers are now tasked with balancing the immediate need for economic recovery, illustrated by the 200 billion-euro energy price shield, with the longer-term goal of achieving sustainability and energy security.

The effects of the stagnation are also being felt in the residential sector. As households face increased living costs and rising heating and electricity costs, many are becoming more conscious of their energy consumption. Initiatives to improve home energy efficiency, such as better insulation and energy-efficient appliances, are gaining traction among consumers looking to reduce their utility bills. This shift toward energy conservation aligns with broader national goals of reducing overall energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Despite the challenges, there is a silver lining. The current situation offers an opportunity for Germany to reassess its energy strategies and invest in technologies that promote sustainability while also addressing economic concerns. This could include increasing support for research and development in green technologies, enhancing energy efficiency programs, and incentivizing businesses to adopt cleaner energy practices.

Furthermore, Germany’s experience may serve as a case study for other nations grappling with similar issues. As economies around the world face the dual pressures of recovery and sustainability, the lessons learned from Germany’s current energy landscape could inform strategies for balancing these often conflicting priorities.

In conclusion, Germany is poised to witness a historic decline in energy demand as economic stagnation takes hold. While this trend poses challenges for the energy sector and economic growth, it also highlights the importance of sustainability and energy efficiency in shaping the future. As the nation navigates this complex landscape, the focus will need to be on fostering innovation and investment that aligns with both immediate economic needs and long-term environmental goals. The path forward will require a careful balancing act, but with the right strategies, Germany can emerge as a leader in sustainable energy practices even in challenging times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News