EU Smart Meters Spur Growth in the Customer Analytics Market

Southeast Electricity Demand Forecast examines how energy efficiency, photovoltaics, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response shape grid needs, stabilize load through 2030, shift peaks, and inform utility planning across the region.

Key Points

An outlook of load shaped by efficiency, solar, EVs, with demand response keeping usage steady through 2030.

✅ Stabilizes regional demand through 2030 under accelerated adoption

✅ Energy efficiency and demand response are primary levers

✅ EVs and heat pumps drive growth post 2030; shift winter peaks

Electricity markets in the Southeast are facing many changes on the customer side of the meter. In a new report released today, we look at how energy efficiency, photovoltaics (solar electricity), electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response (shifting loads from periods of high demand) might affect electricity needs in the Southeast.

We find that if all of these resources are pursued on an accelerated basis, electricity demand in the region can be stabilized until about 2030.

After that, demand will likely grow in the following decade because of increased market penetration of electric vehicles and heat pumps, but energy planners will have time to deal with this growth if these projections are borne out. We also find that energy efficiency and demand response can be vital for managing electricity supply and demand in the region and that these resources can help contain energy demand growth, reducing the impact of expensive new generation on consumer wallets.

National trends

This is the second ACEEE report looking at regional electricity demand. In 2016, we published a study on electricity consumption in New England, finding an even more pronounced effect. For New England, with even more aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency and these other resources, consumption was projected to decline through about 2030, before rebounding in the following decade.

These regional trends fit into a broader national pattern. In the United States, electricity consumption has been characterized by flat electricity demand for the past decade. Increased energy efficiency efforts have contributed to this lack of consumption growth, even as the US economy has grown since the Great Recession. Recently, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA – a branch of the US Department of Energy) released data on US electricity consumption in 2016, finding that 2016 consumption was 0.3% below 2015 consumption, and other analysts reported a 1% slide in 2023 on milder weather.

Five scenarios for the Southeast

ACEEE’s new study focuses on the Southeast because it is very different from New England, with warmer weather, more economic growth, and less-aggressive energy efficiency and distributed energy policies than the Northeast. For the Southeast, we examined five scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario; two alternative scenarios with progressively higher levels of energy efficiency, photovoltaics informed by a solar strategy for the South that is emerging regionally, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response; and two scenarios combining high numbers of electric vehicles and heat pumps with more modest levels of the other resources. This figure presents electricity demand for each of these scenarios:

Over the 2016-2040 period, we project that average annual growth will range from 0.1% to 1.0%, depending on the scenario, much slower than historic growth in the region. Energy efficiency is generally the biggest contributor to changes in projected 2040 electricity consumption relative to the business-as-usual scenario, as shown in the figure below, which presents our accelerated scenario that is based on levels of energy efficiency and other resources now targeted by leading states and utilities in the Southeast.

To date, Entergy Arkansas has achieved the annual efficiency savings as a percent of sales shown in the accelerated scenario and Progress Energy (a division of Duke Energy) has nearly achieved those savings in both North and South Carolina. Sixteen states outside the Southeast have also achieved these savings statewide.

The efficiency savings shown in the aggressive scenario have been proposed by the Arkansas PSC. This level of savings has already been achieved by Arizona as well as six other states. Likewise, the demand response savings we model have been achieved by more than 10 utilities, including four in the Southeast. The levels of photovoltaic, electric vehicle, and heat pump penetration are more speculative and are subject to significant uncertainty.

We also examined trends in summer and winter peak demand. Most utilities in the Southeast have historically had peak demand in the summer, often seeing heatwave-driven surges that stress operations across the Eastern U.S., but our analysis shows that winter peaks will be more likely in the region as photovoltaics and demand response reduce summer peaks and heat pumps increase winter peaks.

Why it’s vital to plan broadly

Our analysis illustrates the importance of incorporating energy efficiency, demand response, and photovoltaics into utility planning forecasts as utility trends to watch continue to evolve. Failing to include these resources leads to much higher forecasts, resulting in excess utility system investments, unnecessarily increasing customer electricity rates. Our analysis also illustrates the importance of including electric vehicles and heat pumps in long-term forecasts. While these technologies will have moderate impacts over the next 10 years, they could become increasingly important in the long run.

We are entering a dynamic period of substantial uncertainty for long-term electricity sales and system peaks, highlighted by COVID-19 demand shifts that upended typical patterns. We need to carefully observe and analyze developments in energy efficiency, photovoltaics, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response over the next few years. As these technologies advance, we can create policies to reduce energy bills, system costs, and harmful emissions, drawing on grid reliability strategies tested in Texas, while growing the Southeast’s economy. Resource planners should be sure to incorporate these emerging trends and policies into their long-term forecasts and planning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

French Antitrust Fines for Electrical Cartel expose price fixing by Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar, after a Competition Authority probe into electrical distribution, collusion, and compliance breaches impacting market competition and customers.

Key Points

Penalties on Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar for electrical price fixing, upholding competition law.

✅ Competition Authority fined four major suppliers.

✅ Collusion raised prices across construction and industry.

✅ Firms bolster compliance programs and training.

In a significant crackdown on corporate malfeasance, French authorities have imposed hefty fines on four major electrical equipment companies—Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar—after concluding a price-fixing investigation. The total fines amount to approximately €500 million, underscoring the seriousness with which regulators are addressing anti-competitive practices in the electrical distribution sector, even as France advances a new electricity pricing scheme to address EU concerns.

Background of the Investigation

The probe, initiated by France’s Competition Authority, sought to uncover collusion among these leading firms regarding the pricing of electrical equipment and services between 2005 and 2012. This investigation is part of a broader initiative to promote fair competition within the market, as Europe prepares to revamp its electricity market to bolster transparency, ensuring that consumers and businesses alike benefit from competitive pricing and innovative products.

The inquiry revealed that these companies had engaged in illicit agreements to fix prices and coordinate their market strategies, limiting competition in a sector critical to both the economy and infrastructure. The findings indicated that the collusion not only stifled competition but also led to inflated prices for customers, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is often more complex than it appears for customers across various sectors, from construction to manufacturing.

The Fines Imposed

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the fines levied against the companies were substantial. Schneider Electric faced the largest penalty, receiving a fine of €220 million, while Legrand was fined €150 million. Rexel and Sonepar were each fined €70 million and €50 million, respectively. These financial penalties serve as a deterrent to other companies that might consider engaging in similar practices, reinforcing the message that anti-competitive behavior will not be tolerated.

The fines are particularly significant given the size and influence of these companies within the electrical equipment market. Their combined revenues amount to billions of euros annually, making the repercussions of their actions far-reaching. As major players in the industry, their pricing strategies have a direct impact on numerous sectors, from residential construction to large-scale industrial projects.

Industry Reactions

The response from the affected companies has varied. Schneider Electric expressed its commitment to compliance and transparency, acknowledging the importance of adhering to competition laws, amid ongoing EU electricity reform debates that influence market expectations.

Legrand also emphasized its commitment to fair competition, noting that it has taken steps to enhance its compliance framework in response to the investigation. Rexel and Sonepar similarly reaffirmed their dedication to ethical business practices and their intention to cooperate with regulators in the future.

Industry experts have pointed out that these fines, while significant, may not be enough to deter large corporations from engaging in similar behavior unless accompanied by a broader cultural shift within the industry. There is a growing call for enhanced oversight and stricter penalties to ensure that companies prioritize ethical conduct over short-term profits.

Implications for the Market

The fines imposed on Schneider, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar could have broader implications for the electrical equipment market and beyond. They signal to other companies within the sector that regulatory bodies are vigilant, even as nine EU countries oppose electricity market reforms proposed as fixes for price spikes, and willing to take decisive action against anti-competitive practices. This could foster a more competitive environment, ultimately benefiting consumers through better prices and enhanced product offerings.

Moreover, the case highlights the importance of regulatory bodies in maintaining fair market conditions. As industries evolve, ongoing vigilance from competition authorities will be necessary to prevent similar instances of collusion and ensure that markets remain competitive and innovative, as seen when New York opened a formal review of retail energy markets.

The recent fines imposed on Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar mark a significant moment in France's ongoing battle against corporate price-fixing and anti-competitive practices, occurring as the government and EDF reached a deal on electricity prices to balance market pressures. With total penalties exceeding €500 million, the investigation underscores the commitment of French authorities to uphold market integrity and protect consumer interests.

As the industry reflects on these developments, it remains crucial for companies to prioritize compliance and ethical business practices. The ultimate goal is to create an environment where competition thrives, innovation flourishes, and consumers benefit from fair pricing. This case serves as a reminder that transparency and accountability are vital in maintaining the health of any market, particularly one as essential as the electrical equipment sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Power Construction Milestones spotlight EPR builds, Hualong One steam generators, APR-1400 grid integration, and VVER startups, with hot functional testing, hydrostatic checks, and commissioning advancing toward fuel loading and commercial operation.

Key Points

Key reactor project steps, from testing and grid readiness to startup, marking progress toward safe commercial operation.

✅ EPR units advance through cold and hot functional testing

✅ Hualong One installs 365-ton steam generators at Fuqing 5

✅ APR-1400 and VVER projects progress toward grid connection

The world’s nuclear power industry has been busy in the new year, with several construction projects, including U.S. reactor builds, reaching key milestones as 2018 began.

EPR Units Making Progress

Four EPR nuclear units are under construction in three countries: Olkiluoto 3 in Finland began construction in August 2005, Flamanville 3 in France began construction in December 2007, and Taishan 1 and 2 in China began construction in November 2009. Each of the new units is behind schedule and over budget, but recent progress may signal an end to some of the construction difficulties.

EDF reported that cold functional tests were completed at Flamanville 3 on January 6. The main purpose of the testing was to confirm the integrity of primary systems, and verify that components important to reactor safety were properly installed and ready to operate. More than 500 welds were inspected while pressure was held greater than 240 bar (3,480 psi) during the hydrostatic testing, which was conducted under the supervision of the French Nuclear Safety Authority.

With cold testing successfully completed, EDF can now begin preparing for hot functional tests, which verify equipment performance under normal operating temperatures and pressures. Hot testing is expected to begin in July, with fuel loading and reactor startup possible by year end. The company also reported that the total cost for the unit is projected to be €10.5 billion (in 2015 Euros, excluding interim interest).

Olkiluoto 3 began hot functional testing in December. Teollisuuden Voima Oyj—owner and operator of the site—expects the unit to produce its first power by the end of this year, with commercial operation now slated to begin in May 2019.

Although work on Taishan 1 began years after Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3, it is the furthest along of the EPR units. Reports surfaced on January 2 that China General Nuclear (CGN) had completed hot functional testing on Taishan 1, and that the company expects the unit to be the first EPR to startup. CGN said Taishan 1 would begin commercial operation later this year, with Taishan 2 following in 2019.

Hualong One Steam Generators Installed

Another Chinese project reached a notable milestone on January 8. China National Nuclear Corp. announced the third of three steam generators had been installed at the Hualong One demonstration project, which is being constructed as Unit 5 at the Fuqing nuclear power plant.

The Hualong One pressurized water reactor unit, also known as the HPR 1000, is a domestically developed design, part of China’s nuclear program, based on a French predecessor. It has a 1,090 MW capacity. The steam generators reportedly weigh 365 metric tons and stand more than 21 meters tall. The first steam generator was installed at Fuqing 5 on November 10, with the second placed on Christmas Eve.

Barakah Switchyard Energized

In the United Arab Emirates, more progress has been made on the four South Korean–designed APR-1400 units under construction at the Barakah nuclear power plant. On January 4, Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp. (ENEC) announced that the switchyard for Units 3 and 4 had been energized and connected to the power grid, a crucial step in Abu Dhabi toward completion. Unit 2’s main power transformer, excitation transformer, and auxiliary power transformer were also energized in preparation for hot functional testing on that unit.

“These milestones are a result of our extensive collaboration with our Prime Contractor and Joint Venture partner, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO),” ENEC CEO Mohamed Al Hammadi said in a press release. “Working together and benefitting from the experience gained when conducting the same work on Unit 1, the teams continue to make significant progress while continuing to implement the highest international standards of safety, security and quality.”

In 2017, ENEC and KEPCO achieved several construction milestones including installation and concrete pouring for the reactor containment building liner dome section on Unit 3, and installation of the reactor containment liner plate rings, reactor vessel, steam generators, and condenser on Unit 4.

Construction began on the four units (Figure 1) in July 2012, May 2013, September 2014, and September 2015, respectively. Unit 1 is currently undergoing commissioning and testing activities while awaiting regulatory review and receipt of the unit’s operating license from the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation, before achieving 100% power in a later phase. According to ENEC, Unit 2 is 90% complete, Unit 3 is 79% complete, and Unit 4 is 60% complete.

VVER Units Power Up

On December 29, Russia’s latest reactor to commence operation—Rostov 4 near the city of Volgodonsk—reached criticality, as other projects like Leningrad II-1 advance across the fleet, and was operated at its minimum controlled reactor power (MCRP). Criticality is a term used in the nuclear industry to indicate that each fission event in the reactor is releasing a sufficient number of neutrons to sustain an ongoing series of reactions, which means the neutron population is constant and the chain reaction is stable.

“The transfer to the MCRP allows [specialists] to carry out all necessary physical experiments in the critical condition of [the] reactor unit (RU) to prove its design criteria,” Aleksey Deriy, vice president of Russian projects for ASE Engineering Co., said in a press release. “Upon the results of the experiments the specialists will decide on the RU powerup.”

Rostov 4 is a VVER-1000 reactor with a capacity of 1,000 MW. The site is home to three other VVER units: Unit 1 began commercial operation in 2001, Unit 2 in 2010, and Unit 3 in 2015.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

UK Free Electricity Debate weighs soaring energy prices against market regulation, renewables, and social equity, examining price caps, funding via windfall taxes, grid investment, and consumer protection in the UK's evolving energy policy landscape.

Key Points

A policy dispute over free power, balancing consumer relief with market stability, renewables, and investment.

✅ Pros: relief for households; boosts efficiency and green adoption.

✅ Cons: risks to market signals, quality, and grid investment.

✅ Policy options: price caps, windfall taxes, targeted subsidies.

In recent months, the debate over free electricity in the UK has intensified, revealing a divide within the energy sector. With soaring energy prices and economic pressures impacting consumers, the discussion around providing free electricity has gained traction. However, the idea has sparked significant controversy among industry stakeholders, each with their own perspectives on the feasibility and implications of such a move.

The Context of Rising Energy Costs

The push for free electricity is rooted in the UK’s ongoing energy crisis, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As energy prices reached unprecedented levels, households faced the harsh reality of skyrocketing bills, prompting calls for government intervention to alleviate financial burdens.

Supporters of free electricity argue that it could serve as a vital lifeline for struggling families and businesses. The proposal suggests that by providing a certain amount of electricity for free, the government could help mitigate the effects of rising costs while encouraging energy conservation and efficiency.

Industry Perspectives

However, the notion of free electricity has not been universally embraced within the energy sector. Some industry leaders express concerns about the financial viability of such a scheme. They argue that providing free electricity could undermine the market dynamics that incentivize investment in infrastructure and renewable energy, in a market already exposed to natural gas price volatility today. Critics warn that if energy companies are forced to absorb costs, it could lead to diminished service quality and investment in necessary advancements.

Additionally, there are worries about how free electricity could be funded. Proponents suggest that a tax on energy companies could generate the necessary revenue, but opponents question whether this would stifle innovation and competition. The fear is that placing additional financial burdens on energy providers could ultimately lead to higher prices in the long run.

Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Another aspect of the debate centers around the UK’s commitment to transitioning to renewable energy sources. Supporters of free electricity emphasize that such a policy could encourage more widespread adoption of green technologies by making energy more accessible. They argue that by removing the financial barriers associated with energy costs, households would be more inclined to invest in solar panels, heat pumps, and other sustainable solutions.

On the other hand, skeptics contend that the focus should remain on ensuring a stable and reliable energy supply as the UK moves toward its climate goals. They caution against implementing policies that might disrupt the balance of the energy market, potentially hindering the necessary investments in renewable infrastructure.

Government's Role

As discussions unfold, the government’s role in this debate is crucial. Policymakers must navigate the complex landscape of energy regulation, market dynamics, and consumer needs. The government has already introduced measures aimed at assisting vulnerable households, such as energy price caps and direct financial support. However, the question remains whether these initiatives go far enough in addressing the root causes of the energy crisis.

In this context, the government faces pressure from both consumers demanding relief and industry leaders advocating for market stability, including proposals to end the link between gas and electricity prices to curb price volatility. The challenge lies in finding a middle ground that balances immediate support for households with long-term sustainability and investment in the energy sector.

Future Implications

The ongoing debate about free electricity in the UK underscores broader themes related to energy policy, market regulation, and social equity, with rising electricity prices abroad offering context for comparison. As the country navigates its energy transition, the decisions made today will have far-reaching implications for both consumers and the industry.

If the government chooses to pursue a model that includes free electricity, it will need to carefully consider how to implement such a system without jeopardizing the market. Transparency, stakeholder engagement, and thorough impact assessments will be essential to ensure that any new policies are sustainable and equitable.

Conversely, if the concept of free electricity is ultimately rejected, the focus will likely shift back to addressing energy costs through other means, such as enhancing energy efficiency programs or increasing support for vulnerable populations.

The divide within the UK’s energy industry regarding free electricity highlights the complexities of balancing consumer needs with market stability. As the energy crisis continues to unfold, the conversations surrounding this issue will remain at the forefront of public discourse. Ultimately, finding a solution that addresses the immediate challenges while promoting a sustainable energy future will be key to navigating this critical juncture in the UK’s energy landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Site C Dam Electricity Demand underscores B.C.'s decarbonization path, enabling electrification of EVs, heat pumps, and industry, aligning with BC Hydro forecasts and 2030/2050 GHG targets to supply dependable, renewable baseload power.

Key Points

Projected clean power tied to Site C, driven by B.C. electrification to meet 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas targets.

✅ Aligns with 25-30% by 2030 and 55-70% by 2050 GHG cuts

✅ Supports EVs, heat pumps, and industrial electrification

✅ Provides dependable baseload alongside efficiency gains

There are valid reasons not to build the Site C dam. There are also valid reasons to build it. One of the latter is the rapid increase in clean electricity needed to reduce B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions from burning natural gas, gasoline, diesel and other harmful fossil fuel products.

Although former Premier Christy Clark casually avoided near-term emissions targets, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has set Canadian targets for both 2030 and 2050, and cleaning up Canada's electricity is critical to meeting them. Studies by my research group at Simon Fraser University and other independent analysts show that B.C.’s cost-effective contribution to these national targets requires us to reduce our emissions 25 to 30 per cent by 2030 and 55 to 70 per cent by 2050 — an energy evolution involving, among other things, a much greater use of electricity in buildings, vehicles and industry.

Recent submissions to the Site C hearing have offered widely different estimates of B.C.’s electricity demand in the decade after the project’s completion in 2025, some arguing the dam’s output will be completely surplus to domestic need for years and perhaps decades, even though improved B.C.-Alberta grid links could help balance regional demand. Some of this variation in demand forecasts is understandable. Industrial demand is especially difficult to predict, dependent as it is on global economic conditions and shifting trade relations. And there are legitimate uncertainties about B.C. Hydro’s ability to reduce electricity demand by promoting efficient products and behaviour through its Power Smart program. But some of the forecasts appear to be deliberate exaggerations, designed to support fixed positions for or against Site C.

Our university-based research team models the energy system changes required to meet national and provincial emissions targets, and we have been comparing estimates of the electricity demand implications. These estimates are produced by academics, as well as by key institutions like B.C. Hydro, the National Energy Board, and the governments of Canada and B.C.

Most electricity forecasts for B.C., including the most recent by B.C. Hydro, do not assume that B.C. reduces its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 30 per cent by 2030 and 55 to 70 per cent by 2050. When we adjust Hydro’s forecast for just the low end of these targets, we find that in its latest, August 30, submission to the Site C hearing, which followed the premier’s over-budget go-ahead on the project, Hydro has underestimated the demand for its electricity by about three terawatt-hours in 2025, four in 2030 and 10 in 2035. Hydro’s forecast indicates that it will need the five terawatt-hours from Site C. Our research shows that even if Hydro’s demand forecast is too high, appropriate climate policy nationally and in B.C. will absorb all the electricity the dam can produce soon after its completion.

B.C. Hydro does not forecast electricity demand to 2050. But, studies by us and others show that B.C. electricity demand will be almost double today’s levels if we are to reduce emissions by 55 to 70 per cent, even amid a documented risk of missing the 2050 target, in just over three decades while our population, economy, buildings and equipment grow significantly. Most mid- and small-sized vehicles will be electric. Most buildings will be well insulated and heated by electric resistance or electric heat-pumps, either individually or via district heating systems. And many low temperature industrial applications will be electric.

Aggressive efforts to promote energy efficiency will make an important contribution, such that energy demand will not grow nearly as fast as the economy. But it is delusional to think that humans will stop using energy. Even climate policy scenarios in which we assume unprecedented success with energy efficiency show dramatic increases in the consumption of electricity, this being the most favoured zero-emission form of energy as a replacement for planet-destroying gasoline and natural gas.

The completion of the Site C dam is a complicated and challenging societal choice, and delay-related cost risks highlighted by the premier underscore the stakes. There is unbiased evidence and argument supporting either completion or cancellation. But let’s stick to the unbiased evidence. In the case of our 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets, such evidence shows that we must substantially increase our generation of dependable electricity. If the Site C dam is built, and if we are true to our climate goals, all its electricity will be used in B.C. soon after completion.

Mark Jaccard is a professor of sustainable energy in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News