China, India endorse Copenhagen climate deal

US Climate Alliance 100% Renewables 2035 accelerates clean energy, electrification, and decarbonization, replacing coal and gas with wind, solar, and storage to cut air pollution, lower energy bills, create jobs, and advance environmental justice.

Key Points

A state-level target for alliance members to meet all electricity demand with renewable energy by 2035.

✅ 100% RES can meet rising demand from electrification

✅ Major health gains from reduced SO2, NOx, and particulates

✅ Jobs grow, energy burdens fall, climate resilience improves

The Union of Concerned Scientists joined with COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, to better understand the feasibility and implications of leadership states meeting 100 percent of their electricity needs with renewable energy by 2035, a target reflected in federal clean electricity goals under discussion today.

We focused on 24 member states of the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to the goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. We analyzed two main scenarios: business as usual versus 100 percent renewable electricity standards, in line with many state clean energy targets now in place.

Our analysis shows that:

Climate Alliance states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035, as independent assessments of zero-emissions feasibility suggest. This holds true even with strong increases in demand due to the electrification of transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

To ensure an equitable transition, states should broaden access to clean energy technologies and decision making to include environmental justice and fossil fuel-dependent communitieswhile directly phasing out coal and gas plants.

Demands for climate action surround us. Every day brings news of devastating "this is not normal" extreme weather: record-breaking heat waves, precipitation, flooding, wildfires. To build resilience and mitigate the worst impacts of the climate crisis requires immediate action to reduce heat-trapping emissions and transition to renewable energy, including practical decarbonization strategies adopted by states.

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables explores actions at one critical level: how leadership states can address climate change by reducing heat-trapping emissions in key sectors of the economy as well as by considering the impacts of our energy choices. A collaboration of the Union of Concerned Scientists and local environmental justice groups COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, with contributions from the national Initiative for Energy Justice, assessed the potential to accelerate the use of renewable energy dramatically through state-level renewable electricity standards (RESs), major drivers of clean energy in recent decades. In addition, the partners worked with Greenlink Analytics, an energy research organization, to assess how RESs most directly affect people's lives, such as changes in public health, jobs, and energy bills for households.

Focusing on 24 members of the United States Climate Alliance (USCA), the study assesses the implications of meeting 100 percent of electricity consumption in these states, including examples like Rhode Island's 100% by 2030 plan that inform policy design, with renewable energy in the near term. The alliance is a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to reducing heat-trapping emissions consistent with the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.[1]

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables looks at three types of results from a transition to 100 percent RES policies: improvements in public health from decreasing the use of coal and gas2 power plants; net job creation from switching to more labor-oriented clean energy; and reduced household energy bills from using cleaner sources of energy. The study assumes a strong push to electrify transportation and heating to address harmful emissions from the current use of fossil fuels in these sectors. Our core policy scenario does not focus on electricity generation itself, nor does it mandate retiring coal, gas, and nuclear power plants or assess new policies to drive renewable energy in non-USCA states.

Our analysis shows that:

USCA states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035 even with strong increases in demand due to electrifying transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

Renewable electricity standards must be paired with policies that address not only electricity consumption but also electricity generation, including modern grid infrastructure upgrades that enable higher renewable shares, both to transition away from fossil fuels more quickly and to ensure an equitable transition in which all communities experience the benefits of a clean energy economy.

Currently, the states in this analysis meet their electricity needs with differing mixes of electricity sourcesfossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables. Yet across the states, the study shows significant declines in fossil fuel use from transitioning to clean electricity; the use of solar and wind powerthe dominant renewablesgrows substantially:

In the study's "No New Policy" scenario"business as usual"coal and gas generation stay largely at current levels over the next two decades. Electricity generation from wind and solar grows due to both current policies and lowest costs.

In a "100% RES" scenario, each USCA state puts in place a 100 percent renewable electricity standard. Gas generation falls, although some continues for export to non-USCA states. Coal generation essentially disappears by 2040. Wind and solar generation combined grow to seven times current levels, and three times as much as in the No New Policy scenario.

A focus on meeting in-state electricity consumption in the 100% RES scenario yields important outcomes. Reductions in electricity from coal and gas plants in the USCA states reduce power plant pollution, including emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. By 2040, this leads to 6,000 to 13,000 fewer premature deaths than in the No New Policy scenario, as well as 140,000 fewer cases of asthma exacerbation and 700,000 fewer lost workdays. The value of the additional public health benefits in the USCA states totals almost $280 billion over the two decades. In a more detailed analysis of three USCA statesMassachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesotathe 100% RES scenario leads to almost 200,000 more added jobs in building and installing new electric generation capacity than the No New Policy scenario.

The 100% RES scenario also reduces average energy burdens, the portion of household income spent on energy. Even considering household costs solely for electricity and gas, energy burdens in the 100% RES scenario are at or below those in the No New Policy scenario in each USCA state in most or all years. The average energy burden across those states declines from 3.7 percent of income in 2020 to 3.0 percent in 2040 in the 100% RES scenario, compared with 3.3 percent in 2040 in the No New Policy scenario.

Decreasing the use of fossil fuels through increasing the use of renewables and accelerating electrification reduces emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), with implications for climate, public health, and economies. Annual CO2 emissions from power plants in USCA states decrease 58 percent from 2020 to 2040 in the 100% RES scenario compared with 12 percent in the No New Policy scenario.

The study also reveals gaps to be filled beyond eliminating fossil fuel pollution from communities, such as the persistence of gas generation to sell power to neighboring states, reflecting barriers to a fully renewable grid that policy must address. Further, it stresses the importance of policies targeting just and equitable outcomes in the move to renewable energy.

Moving away from fossil fuels in communities most affected by harmful air pollution should be a top priority in comprehensive energy policies. Many communities continue to bear far too large a share of the negative impacts from decades of siting the infrastructure for the nation's fossil fuel power sector in or near marginalized neighborhoods. This pattern will likely persist if the issue is not acknowledged and addressed. State policies should mandate a priority on reducing emissions in communities overburdened by pollution and avoiding investments inconsistent with the need to remove heat-trapping emissions and air pollution at an accelerated rate. And communities must be centrally involved in decisionmaking around any policies and rules that affect them directly, including proposals to change electricity generation, both to retire fossil fuel plants and to build the renewable energy infrastructure.

Key recommendations in On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables address moving away from fossil fuels, increasing investment in renewable energy, and reducing CO2 emissions. They aim to ensure that communities most affected by a history of environmental racism and pollution share in the benefits of the transition: cleaner air, equitable access to good-paying jobs and entrepreneurship alternatives, affordable energy, and the resilience that renewable energy, electrification, energy efficiency, and energy storage can provide. While many communities can benefit from the transition, strong justice and equity policies will avoid perpetuating inequities in the electricity system. State support to historically underserved communities for investing in solar, energy efficiency, energy storage, and electrification will encourage local investment, community wealth-building, and the resilience benefits the transition to renewable energy can provide.

A national clean electricity standard and strong pollution standards should complement state action to drive swift decarbonization and pollution reduction across the United States. Even so, states are well positioned to simultaneously address climate change and decades of inequities in the power system. While it does not substitute for much-needed national and international leadership, strong state action is crucial to achieving an equitable clean energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Negative Electricity Prices in France signal oversupply from wind and solar, stressing the wholesale market and grid. Better storage, demand response, and interconnections help balance renewables and stabilize prices today.

Key Points

They occur when renewable output exceeds demand, pushing power prices below zero as excess energy strains the grid.

✅ Driven by wind and solar surges with low demand

✅ Challenges thermal plants; erodes margins at negative prices

✅ Needs storage, demand response, and cross-border interties

France has recently experienced an unusual and unprecedented situation in its electricity market: negative electricity prices. This development, driven by a significant influx of renewable energy sources, highlights the evolving dynamics of energy markets as countries increasingly rely on clean energy technologies. The phenomenon of negative pricing reflects both the opportunities and renewable curtailment challenges associated with the integration of renewable energy into national grids.

Negative electricity prices occur when the supply of electricity exceeds demand to such an extent that producers are willing to pay consumers to take the excess energy off their hands. This situation typically arises during periods of high renewable energy generation coupled with low energy demand. In France, this has been driven primarily by a surge in wind and solar power production, which has overwhelmed the grid and created an oversupply of electricity.

The recent surge in renewable energy generation can be attributed to a combination of favorable weather conditions and increased capacity from new renewable energy installations. France has been investing heavily in wind and solar energy as part of its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning towards a more sustainable energy system, in line with renewables surpassing fossil fuels in Europe in recent years. While these investments are essential for achieving long-term climate goals, they have also led to challenges in managing energy supply and demand in the short term.

One of the key factors contributing to the negative prices is the variability of renewable energy sources. Wind and solar power are intermittent by nature, meaning their output can fluctuate significantly depending on weather conditions, with solar reshaping price patterns in Northern Europe as deployment grows. During times of high wind or intense sunshine, the electricity generated can far exceed the immediate demand, leading to an oversupply. When the grid is unable to store or export this excess energy, prices can drop below zero as producers seek to offload the surplus.

The impact of negative prices on the energy market is multifaceted. For consumers, negative prices can lead to lower energy costs as wholesale electricity prices fall during oversupply, and even potential credits or payments from energy providers. This can be a welcome relief for households and businesses facing high energy bills. However, negative prices can also create financial challenges for energy producers, particularly those relying on conventional power generation methods. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, which have higher operating costs, may struggle to compete when prices are negative, potentially affecting their profitability and operational stability.

The phenomenon also underscores the need for enhanced energy storage and grid management solutions. Excess energy generated from renewable sources needs to be stored or redirected to maintain grid stability and avoid negative pricing situations. Advances in battery storage technology, such as France's largest battery storage platform, and improvements in grid infrastructure are essential to addressing these challenges and optimizing the integration of renewable energy into the grid. By developing more efficient storage solutions and expanding grid capacity, France can better manage fluctuations in renewable energy production and reduce the likelihood of negative prices.

France's experience with negative electricity prices is part of a broader trend observed in other countries with high levels of renewable energy penetration. Similar situations have occurred in Germany, where solar plus storage is now cheaper than conventional power, the United States, and other regions where renewable energy capacity is rapidly expanding. These instances highlight the growing pains associated with transitioning to a cleaner energy system and the need for innovative solutions to balance supply and demand.

The French government and energy regulators are closely monitoring the situation and exploring measures to mitigate the impact of negative prices. Policy adjustments, market reforms, and investments in energy infrastructure are all potential strategies to address the challenges posed by high renewable energy generation. Additionally, encouraging the development of flexible demand response programs and enhancing grid interconnections with neighboring countries can help manage excess energy and stabilize prices.

In the long term, the rise of renewable energy and the occurrence of negative prices represent a positive development for the energy transition. They indicate progress towards cleaner energy sources and a more sustainable energy system. However, managing the associated challenges is crucial for ensuring that the transition is smooth and economically viable for all stakeholders involved.

In conclusion, the recent instance of negative electricity prices in France highlights the complexities of integrating renewable energy into the national grid. While the phenomenon reflects the success of France’s efforts to expand its renewable energy capacity, it also underscores the need for advanced grid management and storage solutions. As the country continues to navigate the transition to a more sustainable energy system, addressing these challenges will be essential for maintaining a stable and efficient energy market. The experience serves as a valuable lesson for other nations undergoing similar transitions and reinforces the importance of innovation and adaptability in the evolving energy landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

New Mexico EV Benefits highlight cheaper fuel, lower maintenance, cleaner air, and smarter charging, cutting utility bills, reducing NOx and carbon emissions, and leveraging incentives and renewable energy to accelerate EV adoption statewide.

Key Points

New Mexico EV Benefits are the cost, grid, and emissions gains from EV adoption and optimized off-peak charging.

✅ Electricity near $1.11 per gallon equivalent cuts fueling costs

✅ Fewer moving parts mean less maintenance and lifecycle costs

✅ Off-peak charging reduces utility bills and grid emissions

What would happen if New Mexicans ditched gasoline and started to drive on cleaner, cheaper electricity? A new report from MJ Bradley & Associates, commissioned by NRDC and Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, answers that question, demonstrating that New Mexico could realize $30 billion in avoided expenditures on gasoline and maintenance, reduced utility bills, and environmental benefits by 2050. The state is currently considering legislation to jump-start that transition by providing consumers incentives to support electric vehicle (EV) purchases and the installation of charging stations, drawing on examples like Nevada's clean-vehicle push to accelerate deployment, a policy that would require a few million dollars in lost tax revenue. The report shows an investment of this kind could yield tens of billions of dollars in net benefits.

$20 Billion in Driver Savings

EVs save families money because driving on electricity in New Mexico is the cost-equivalent of driving on $1.11 per gallon gasoline. Furthermore, EVs have fewer moving parts and less required maintenance—no oil changes, no transmissions, no mufflers, no timing belts, etc. That means that tackling the nation’s largest source of carbon pollution, transportation, could save New Mexicans over $20 billion by 2050 because EVs are cheaper to charge and maintain than gas powered cars, and an EV boom benefits all customers through lower rates.

Those are savings New Mexico can bank on because the price of electricity is significantly cheaper than the price of gasoline and also inherently more stable. Electricity is made from a diverse supply of domestic and increasingly clean resources, and 2021 electricity lessons continue to inform grid planning today. Unlike the volatile world oil market, New Mexico’s electric sector is regulated by the state’s utility commission. Adjusted for inflation, the price of electricity has been steady around the dollar-a-gallon equivalent mark in New Mexico for the last 20 years, while gas prices jump up or down radically and unpredictably.

$4.8 Billion in Reduced Electric Bills

While some warn that electric cars will challenge state power grids, New Mexico can charge millions of EVs without the need to make significant investments in the electric grid. This is because EVs can be charged when the grid is underutilized and renewable energy is abundant, like when people are sleeping overnight when wind energy generation often peaks. And the billions of dollars in new utility revenue from EV charging in excess of associated costs will be automatically returned to utility customers per an accounting mechanism that is already in state law that requires downward adjustment of rates when sales increase. Accordingly, widespread EV adoption could reduce every utility customer’s electric bill.

Thankfully, New Mexico’s electric industry is already acting to ensure utility customers in the state realize those benefits sooner rather than later. The state’s rural electric cooperatives have proposed an ambitious plan to leverage funds available as a result of the Volkswagen diesel scandal to build a state-wide public fast charging network that mirrors progress as Arizona goes EV across the Southwest. Additionally, New Mexico’s investor-owned utilities will soon propose transportation electrification investments as required by legislation NRDC supported last year that Governor Lujan Grisham signed into law.

$4.8 Billion in Societal Benefits from Reduced Pollution

The report estimates that widespread EV adoption would dramatically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from passenger vehicles in New Mexico, and also cut emissions of NOx, a local pollutant that threatens the health off all New Mexicans, especially children and people with respiratory conditions. The report finds growing the state’s EV market to meet New Mexico’s long-term environmental goals would yield $4.8 billion in societal benefits.

The Bottom Line: New Mexico Should Act Now to Accelerate its EV Market

Adding it all up, that’s more than $30 billion in potential benefits to New Mexico by 2050. Here’s the catch: as of June 2019, there were only 2,500 EVs registered in New Mexico, which means the state needs to accelerate the EV market, as the American EV boom ramps up nationally, to capture those billions of dollars in potential benefits. Thankfully, with second generation, longer range, affordable EVs now available, the market is well positioned to expand rapidly as the state moves to adopt Clean Car Standards that will ensure EVs are available for purchase in the state.

Getting it right

New Mexico has enormous amounts to gain from a small investment in incentives that support EV adoption now. For that investment to pay off, it needs to send a clear and unambiguous signal. Unfortunately, the same legislation that would establish tax credits to increase consumer access to electric vehicles in New Mexico was recently amended so it would not be helpful for 80 percent of consumers who lease, instead of buying EVs. And it would penalize EV drivers at the same time—with a $100 annual increase in registration fees, even as Texas adds a $200 EV fee under a similar rationale, to make up for lost gas tax revenue. That’s significantly more than what drivers of new gasoline vehicles pay annually in gas taxes in the state. Consumer Reports recently analyzed the growing trend to unfairly penalize electric cars via disproportionately high registration fees. In doing so, it estimated that the “maximum justifiable fee” to replace gas tax revenue in New Mexico would be $53. Anything higher will only slow or stop benefits New Mexico can attain from moving to cleaner cars.

To be clear, everyone should pay their fair share to maintain the transportation system, but EVs are not the problem when it comes to lost gas tax revenue. We need a comprehensive solution that addresses the real sources of transportation revenue loss while not undermining efforts to reduce dependence on gasoline. Thankfully, that can be done. For more, see A Simple Way to Fix the Gas Tax Forever.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Duke Energy zero-coal 2050 plan outlines a decarbonized energy mix, aligning with Paris goals, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, driven by investor pressure, shifting to natural gas, extending nuclear power, and phasing out coal.

Key Points

An investor-driven scenario to end coal by 2050, shift to natural gas, extend nuclear plants, and manage climate risk.

✅ Eliminates coal from the generation mix by 2050

✅ Prioritizes natural gas transitions without CCS breakthroughs

✅ Extends nuclear plant licenses to limit carbon emissions

One of America’s largest utility companies, Duke Energy, is set to release a report later this month that sketches a drastically changed electricity mix in a carbon-constrained future.

The big picture: Duke is the latest energy company to commit to releasing a report about climate change in response to investor pressure, echoing shifts such as Europe's oil majors going electric across the sector, conveyed by non-binding but symbolically important shareholder resolutions. Duke provides electricity to more than seven million customers in the Carolinas, the Midwest and Florida.

Gritty details: The report is expected to find that coal, currently 33% of Duke’s mix, gone entirely from its portfolio by 2050 in a future scenario where the world has taken steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and where global coal-fired electricity use is falling markedly, to a level consistent with keeping global temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius. That’s the big ambition of the 2015 Paris climate deal, but the current commitments aren’t close to reaching that.

What they're saying: “What’s difficult about this is we are trying to overlay what we understand currently about technology,” Lynn Good, Duke CEO, told Axios in an interview on the sidelines of a major energy conference here.

She went on to say that this scenario of zero coal by 2050 doesn’t assume any breakthroughs in technology that captures carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. “We don’t see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas.”

Good also stressed the benefits of its several nuclear power plants, highlighting the role of sustaining U.S. nuclear power in decarbonization, which emit no carbon emissions. She said Duke isn’t considering investing in new nuclear plants, but plans to seek federal relicensing of current plants.

“If I turn them off, the resource that would replace them today is natural gas, so carbon will go up,” Good said. “Our objective is to continue to keep those plants as long as possible.”

What’s next: A spokesman said the other details of their 2050 scenario estimates will be available when the report is officially released by month’s end.

Axios reports that Duke Energy will release a report later this month that detail the utility's efforts to mitigate climate change risks and plan carbon-free electricity investments across its operations. The report includes a scenario that eliminates coal entirely from the company's power mix by 2050. Coal currently makes up about a third of Duke's generation.

Duke CEO Lynn Good told the news outlet the scenario ending coal-fired generation assumes no technological advances in emissions capture, seemingly leaving open the possibility.

Last year, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded one in four of the remaining operating coal-fired plants in the U.S. are slated for closure or conversion to natural gas, amid falling power-sector carbon emissions across the country. Duke's report is expected to be released by the end of the month.

Duke's report on its carbon plans comes at the behest of shareholders, a trend utility companies have seen growing among investors who are increasingly concerned about companies' sustainability and their financial exposure to climate policy.

Last year, a majority of shareholders of Pennsylvania utility PPL Corp. called on company management to publish a report on how climate change policies and technological innovations will affect the company's bottom line. Almost 60% of shareholders voted in favor of the non-binding proposal.

The vote, reportedly a first for the power sector, followed a similar decision by shareholders of Occidental Petroleum, which was supported by about 66% of shareholders.

Duke's Good told Axios that right now the utility does not see the coal technology on the horizon that would keep it operating plants. “We don't see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas," Good said. However, it does not mean the utility is making near-term efforts to erase coal from its power mix. However, some utilities are taking those steps as they prepare for en energy landscape with more carbon regulations.

In addition to the 25% of coal plants heading for closure or conversion, the UCS report also said that another 17% of the nation’s operating coal plants are uneconomic compared with natural gas-fired generation, and could face retirement soon. But there is plenty of ongoing research into "clean coal" possibilities, and the federal government has expressed an interest in smaller, modular coal units.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Shift from Fossil Fuels to Renewables signals an energy transition and decarbonization, as investors favor wind and solar over coal, oil, and gas due to falling ROI, policy shifts, and accelerating clean-tech innovation.

Key Points

An economic and policy-driven move redirecting capital from coal, oil, and gas to scalable wind and solar power.

✅ Driven by ROI, risk, and protests curbing fossil fuel projects

✅ Coal declines as wind and solar capacity surges globally

✅ Policy, technology, and markets speed the energy transition

This article is an excerpt from "Changing Tides: An Ecologist's Journey to Make Peace with the Anthropocene" by Alejandro Frid. Reproduced with permission from New Society Publishers. The book releases Oct. 15.

The climate and biodiversity crises reflect the stories that we have allowed to infiltrate the collective psyche of industrial civilization. It is high time to let go of these stories. Unclutter ourselves. Regain clarity. Make room for other stories that can help us reshape our ways of being in the world.

For starters, I’d love to let go of what has been our most venerated and ingrained story since the mid-1700s: that burning more fossil fuels is synonymous with prosperity. Letting go of that story shouldn’t be too hard these days. Financial investment over the past decade has been shifting very quickly away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, as Europe's oil majors increasingly pivot to electrification. Even Bob Dudley, group chief executive of BP — one of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — acknowledged the trend, writing in the "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017": "The relentless drive to improve energy efficiency is causing global energy consumption overall to decelerate. And, of course, the energy mix is shifting towards cleaner, lower carbon fuels, driven by environmental needs and technological advances." Dudley went on:

Coal consumption fell sharply for the second consecutive year, with its share within primary energy falling to its lowest level since 2004. Indeed, coal production and consumption in the U.K. completed an entire cycle, falling back to levels last seen almost 200 years ago around the time of the Industrial Revolution, with the U.K. power sector recording its first-ever coal-free day in April of this year. In contrast, renewable energy globally led by wind and solar power grew strongly, helped by continuing technological advances.

According to Dudley’s team, global production of oil and natural gas also slowed down in 2016. Meanwhile, that same year, the combined power provided by wind and solar energy increased by 14.6 percent: the biggest jump on record. All in all, since 2005, the installed capacity for renewable energy has grown exponentially, doubling every 5.5 years, as investment incentives expand to accelerate clean power.

The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money, and Trump-era oil policies even reshaped Wall Street’s energy strategies.

It is important to celebrate that King Coal — that grand initiator of the Industrial Revolution and nastiest of fossil fuels — has just begun to lose its power over people and the atmosphere. But it is even more important to understand the underlying causes for these changes. The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because the bulk of investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money.

The easy fossil fuels — the kind you used to be able to extract with a large profit margin and relatively low risk of disaster — are essentially gone. Almost all that is left are the dregs: unconventional fossil fuels such as bitumen, or untapped offshore oil reserves in very deep water or otherwise challenging environments, like the Arctic. Sure, the dregs are massive enough to keep tempting investors. There is so much unconventional oil and shale gas left underground that, if we burned it, we would warm the world by 6 degrees or more. But unconventional fossil fuels are very expensive and energy-intensive to extract, refine and market. Additionally, new fossil fuel projects, at least in my part of the world, have become hair triggers for social unrest. For instance, Burnaby Mountain, near my home in British Columbia, where renewable electricity in B.C. is expanding, is the site of a proposed bitumen pipeline expansion where hundreds of people have been arrested since 2015 during multiple acts of civil disobedience against new fossil fuel infrastructure. By triggering legal action and delaying the project, these protests have dented corporate profits. So return on investment for fossil fuels has been dropping.

It is no coincidence that in 2017, Petronas, a huge transnational energy corporation, withdrew their massive proposal to build liquefied natural gas infrastructure on the north coast of British Columbia, as Canada's race to net-zero gathers pace across industry. Petronas backed out not because of climate change or to protect essential rearing habitat for salmon, but to backpedal from a deal that would fail to make them richer.

Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, even as fossil-fuel workers signal readiness to support the transition, does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity.

Neoliberal shifts to favor renewable energies can be completely devoid of concern for climate change. While in office, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioned climate science and cheered for the oil industry, yet that did not stop him from directing his state towards an expansion of wind and solar energy, even as President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible and anchored in long-term economics. Perry saw money to be made by batting for both teams, and merely did what most neoliberal entrepreneurs would have done.

The right change for the wrong reasons brings no guarantees. Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity. Once again, let’s look at Perry. As U.S. secretary of energy under Trump’s presidency, in 2017 he called the global shift from fossil fuels "immoral" and said the United States was "blessed" to provide fossil fuels for the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News