Trends in Electricity Prices in Europe: Expect More Volatility

Philippines Renewable Energy Mini-Grids address rising electricity demand, rolling blackouts, off-grid electrification, and decentralized power in an archipelago, leveraging solar, wind, and hybrid systems to close the generation capacity gap and expand household access.

Key Points

Decentralized solar, wind, and hybrid systems powering off-grid areas to relieve shortages and expand access.

✅ Targets 2.3M unelectrified homes with reliable clean power

✅ Mitigates rolling blackouts via modular mini-grid deployments

✅ Supports energy access, resilience, and grid decentralization

The reason why IRENA made its study in the Philippines is because of the country’s demand for electricity is on a steady rise while the generating capacity lags behind. To provide households the electricity, the government is constrained to implement rolling blackouts in some regions. By 2030, the demand for electricity is projected to reach 30 million kilowatts as compared to 17 million kilowatts which is its current generating capacity.

One of the country’s biggest conglomerations, San Miguel Corporation is accountable for almost 20% of power output. It has power plants that has a 900,000-kW generation capacity. Another corporation in the energy sector, Aboitiz Power, has augmented its facilities as well to keep up with the demand. As a matter fact, even foreign players such as Tokyo Electric Power and Marubeni, as a result of the gradual privatization of the power industry which started in 2001, have built power plants in the country, a challenge mirrored in other regions where electricity for all demands greater investment, yet the power supply remains short.

And so, the IRENA came up with the study entitled “Accelerating the Deployment of Renewable Energy Mini-Grids for Off-Grid Electrification – A Study on the Philippines” to provide a clearer picture of what the current state of the crisis is and lay out possible solutions. It showed that as of 2016, a record year for renewables worldwide, the Philippines has approximately 2.3 million households without electricity. With only 89.6 percent of household electrification, that leaves about 2.36 million homes either with limited power of four to six hours each day or totally without electricity.

By the end of 2017, the Philippine government will have provided 90% of Philippine households with electricity. It is worth mentioning that in 2014, the National Capital Region together with two other regions had received 90 percent electrification. However, some areas are still unable to access power that’s within or above the national average. IRENA’s study has become a source of valuable information and analysis to the Philippines’ power systems and identified ways on how to surmount the challenges involving power systems decentralization, with renewable energy funding supporting those mini-grids which are either powered in parts or in full by renewable energy resources. This, however, does not discount the fact that providing electricity in every household still is an on-going struggle. Considering that the Philippines is an archipelago, providing enough, dependable, and clean modern energy to the entire country, including the remote and isolated islands is difficult. The onset of renewable energy is a viable and cost-effective option to support the implementation of mini-grids, as shown by Ireland's green electricity targets rising rapidly.

 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Data Centers fuel the digital economy with cloud computing, AI, and streaming, leveraging renewable energy and low-cost power; yet grid capacity, sustainability, efficient cooling, and regulatory frameworks remain critical considerations for reliable growth.

Key Points

Alberta facilities for cloud, AI, and digital services, balancing energy demand, renewable power, and grid reliability.

✅ Low electricity costs and renewables attract hyperscale builds

✅ Grid upgrades needed to meet rising, 24/7 workloads and cooling

✅ Workforce training aligns with IT, HVAC, and electrical roles

As Alberta continues to evolve its energy landscape, the recent surge in data center projects is making headlines. With companies investing heavily in this sector, Alberta is positioning itself as a key player in the digital economy. This trend, however, brings both opportunities and challenges that need careful consideration.

The Digital Economy Boom

Data centers are essential for supporting the growing demands of the digital economy, which includes everything from cloud computing to streaming services and artificial intelligence. As businesses increasingly rely on digital infrastructure, the need for reliable and efficient data centers has skyrocketed. Alberta has become an attractive destination for these facilities due to its relatively low electricity costs, abundant renewable energy resources, and favorable regulatory environment, according to a 2023 clean grids outlook that highlighted the province.

The influx of major tech companies establishing data centers in Alberta not only promises job creation but also contributes to the provincial economy. With investments pouring in, local businesses may see increased opportunities for partnerships, supplies, and services, ultimately benefiting the broader economic landscape, though proposed market changes could influence procurement and siting decisions.

Energy Demand and Infrastructure

While the growth of data centers can drive economic benefits, it also raises important questions about energy demand and infrastructure capacity, questions that have intensified since Kenney-era electricity changes in the sector. Data centers are energy-intensive, often requiring significant amounts of electricity to operate and cool their servers. As these facilities multiply, they will place additional pressure on Alberta's power grid.

The province has made strides in transitioning to renewable energy sources, with a defined path to clean electricity that aligns well with the goals of many data center operators seeking to reduce their carbon footprint. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that the electricity grid can meet the increasing demand without compromising reliability. The integration of more renewable energy into the grid requires careful planning and investment in infrastructure to handle variable supply and maintain a stable energy flow.

Environmental Concerns

The environmental implications of expanding data centers are also a point of concern. While many tech companies prioritize sustainability and aim for carbon neutrality, the reality is that increased energy consumption can contribute to greenhouse gas emissions if not managed properly, especially when regional export restrictions constrain low-carbon power flows. Alberta’s reliance on fossil fuels for a significant portion of its energy supply raises questions about how these data centers will impact the province's climate goals.

To address these concerns, there is a need for policies that encourage the use of renewable energy sources specifically for data center operations. Incentives for companies to invest in green technologies, such as energy-efficient cooling systems or on-site renewable energy generation, could help mitigate the environmental impact.

Workforce Development

Another critical aspect of this data center boom is the potential for job creation. Data centers require a range of skilled workers, from IT professionals to engineers and maintenance staff. However, there is a pressing need for workforce development initiatives to ensure that Albertans are equipped with the necessary skills to fill these roles.

Educational institutions and training programs must adapt to the changing demands of the job market. Collaborations between tech companies and local colleges can foster specialized training programs that prepare workers for careers in this evolving sector. By investing in workforce development, Alberta can maximize the benefits of data center growth while ensuring that its residents are prepared for the jobs of the future.

The Future of Alberta's Data Center Landscape

Looking ahead, Alberta’s data center landscape is poised for continued growth. The province's commitment to diversifying its economy, coupled with its abundant energy resources, makes it an appealing choice for tech companies. However, as the industry expands, careful consideration must be given to energy management, environmental impact, and workforce readiness, especially as Alberta changes how it produces and pays for electricity.

Regulatory frameworks will play a crucial role in shaping the future of data centers in Alberta, as the province pursues a market overhaul that could affect costs and reliability. Policymakers will need to balance the interests of businesses, environmental concerns, and the need for a reliable energy supply. By creating a supportive environment for innovation while addressing these challenges, Alberta can emerge as a leader in the digital economy.

The rise of data centers in Alberta marks an exciting chapter in the province's economic evolution. With the potential for job creation, technological advancement, and economic diversification, the opportunities are significant. However, it is essential to navigate the associated challenges thoughtfully. By prioritizing sustainability, infrastructure investment, and workforce development, Alberta can harness the full potential of this burgeoning sector, positioning itself as a key player in the global digital landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Maine Climate Council Act targets 80% renewable power by 2030 and 100% by 2050, slashing greenhouse gas emissions via clean electricity, grid procurement, long-term contracts, wind and hydro integration, resilience planning, and carbon sequestration.

Key Points

A Maine policy forming a Climate Council to reach 80% renewables in 2030 100% in 2050 and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

✅ 80% renewable electricity by 2030; 100% by 2050.

✅ 45% GHG cut by 2030; 80% by 2050.

✅ Utility procurement authority for clean capacity and energy.

The winds of change have shifted and are blowing Northward, as Maine’s Governor, Janet T. Mills, has put forth an act establishing a Climate Council to guide the state’s consumption to 80% renewable electricity in 2030 and 100% by 2050, echoing New York's Green New Deal ambitions underway.

The act, LR 2478 (pdf), also sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% in 2030 and 80% by 2050. The document will be submitted to the state Legislature for consideration.

The commission would have the authority to direct investor owned transmission and distribution utilities to run competitive procurement processes, and enter into long-term contracts for capacity resources, energy resources, renewable energy credit contracts, and participate in regional programs, as these all lead toward the clean electricity and emissions-reducing goals that mirror California's 100% mandate debates today.

The Climate Council would convene industry working groups, including Scientific and Technical, Transportation, Coastal and Marine, Energy, and Building & Infrastructure working groups, plus others as needed, where examples like New Zealand's electricity transition could inform discussions.

Membership within the council would include two members of the State Senate, two members of the House, a tribal representative, many department commissioners (Education, Defense, Transportation, etc.), multiple directors, business representatives, environmental non-profit members, and climate science and resilience representatives as well.

The council would update the Maine State Climate Plan every four years, and solicit input from the public and report out progress on its goals every two years, similar to planning underway in Minnesota's carbon-free plan framework. The first Climate Action Plan would be submitted to the legislature by December 1, 2020.

Specifically, the responsibilities of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee were laid out. The group would be scheduled to meet at least every six months, beginning no later than October 1, 2019. The group would be tasked with reviewing existing scientific literature, including net-zero electricity pathways research, to use it as guidance, recognizing gaps in the state’s knowledge, and guiding outside experts to ascertain this knowledge.  The group would consider ocean acidification, and climate change effects on the state’s species; establish science-based sea-level rise projections for the state’s coastal regions by December 1, 2020; create a climate risk map for flooding and extreme weather events; and consider carbon sequestration via biomass growth.

The state’s largest power plants (above image), generate about 31% from gas, 28% from wood and 41% from hydro+wind. Already, the state has a very clean electricity profile, much like efforts to decarbonize Canada's power sector continue apace. Below, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes that 51% of electricity generation within the state comes from mostly wind+hydro, with a small touch from solar power. The state also gets 24% from wood and other biomass, which would lead some to argue that the state is already at 75% “renewable electricity”. The Governor’s document does reference wind power specifically as a renewable, however, no other specific electricity source. And there is much reference to forestry, agriculture, and logging – specifically noting carbon sequestration – but nothing regarding electricity.

The state’s final 25% of electricity mostly comes from natural gas, even as renewable electricity momentum builds across North America, with this author choosing to put “other” under the fossil percentage noted above.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Electricity Demand Decoupling signals GDP growth without higher load, driven by energy efficiency, LED adoption, services-led output, and rising renewables integration with the grid, plus EV charging and battery storage supporting decarbonization.

Key Points

GDP grows as electricity use stays flat, driven by efficiency, renewables, and a shift toward services and output.

✅ LEDs and codes cut residential and commercial load intensity.

✅ Wind, solar, and gas gain share as coal and nuclear struggle.

✅ EVs and storage can grow load and enable grid decarbonization.

By Justin Fox

Economic growth picked up a little in the U.S. in 2017. But electricity use fell, with electricity sales projections continuing to decline, according to data released recently by the Energy Information Administration. It's now been basically flat for more than a decade:

Measured on a per-capita basis, electricity use is in clear decline, and is already back to the levels of the mid-1990s.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

*Includes small-scale solar generation from 2014 onward

I constructed these charts to go all the way back to 1949 in part because I can (that's how far back the EIA data series goes) but also because it makes clear what a momentous change this is. Electricity use rose and rose and rose and then ... it didn't anymore.

Slower economic growth since 2007 has been part of the reason, but the 2017 numbers make clear that higher gross domestic product no longer necessarily requires more electricity, although the Iron Law of Climate is often cited to suggest rising energy use with economic growth. I wrote a column last year about this big shift, and there's not a whole lot new to say about what's causing it: mainly increased energy efficiency (driven to a remarkable extent by the rise of LED light bulbs), and the continuing migration of economic activity away from making tangible things and toward providing services and virtual products such as games and binge-watchable TV series (that are themselves consumed on ever-more-energy-efficient electronic devices).

What's worth going over, though, is what this means for those in the business of generating electricity. The Donald Trump administration has made saving coal-fired electric plants a big priority; the struggles of nuclear power plants have sparked concern from multiple quarters. Meanwhile, U.S. natural gas production has grown by more than 40 percent since 2007, thanks to hydraulic fracturing and other new drilling techniques, while wind and solar generation keep making big gains in cost and market share. And this is all happening within the context of a no-growth electricity market.

In China, a mystery in China's electricity data has complicated global comparisons.

Here are the five main sources of electric power in the U.S.:

The big story over the past decade has been coal and natural gas trading places as the top fuel for electricity generation. Over the past year and a half coal regained some of that lost ground as natural gas prices rose from the lows of early 2016. But with overall electricity use flat and production from wind and solar on the rise, that hasn't translated into big increases in coal generation overall.

Oh, and about solar. It's only a major factor in a few states (California especially), so it doesn't make the top five. But it's definitely on the rise.

What happens next? For power generators, the best bet for breaking out of the current no-growth pattern is to electrify more of the U.S. economy, especially transportation. A big part of the attraction of electric cars and trucks for policy-makers and others is their potential to be emissions-free. But they're only really emissions-free if the electricity used to charge them is generated in an emissions-free manner -- creating a pretty strong business case for continuing "decarbonization" of the electric industry. It's conceivable that electric car batteries could even assist in that decarbonization by storing the intermittent power generated by wind and solar and delivering it back onto the grid when needed.

I don't know exactly how all this will play out. Nobody does. But the business of generating electricity isn't going back to its pre-2008 normal. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Ice Storm Response to Fraser Valley power outages highlights freezing rain impacts, round the clock crews, infrastructure challenges, and climate change risks across the Lower Mainland during winter weather and restoration efforts.

Key Points

A plan for freezing rain events that prioritizes safety, rapid repairs, and clear communication to restore power.

✅ Prioritizes hazards, critical loads, and public safety first

✅ Deploys crews, contractors, and equipment across affected areas

✅ Addresses climate risks without costly undergrounding expansion

Call it the straw that broke the llama's back.

The loss of power during recent Fraser Valley ice storms meant Jennifer Quick, who lives on a Mission farm, had no running water, couldn't cook with appliances and still had to tend to a daughter sick with stomach flu.

As if that wasn't enough, she had to endure the sight of her shivering llamas.

"I brought them outside at one point and when I brought them back in, they had icicles on their fur," she said, adding the animals stayed in the warmth of their barn from then on.

For three and a half days, Quick and her family were among more than 160,000 BC Hydro customers in the Fraser Valley left in the dark after ice storms whipped through the region.

BC Hydro expects to get all customers back online Tuesday, five days after the storm hit.

And with another storm possibly on the horizon, the utility is defending its response to the treacherous weather, noting that windstorm power outages can be widespread.

BC Hydro spokesperson Mora Scott said the utility has a "best in class" storm response system, similar to PG&E winter storm prep in the U.S.

"In a typical storm situation we normally have 95 per cent of our customers back up within 24 hours. Ice storms are different and obviously this was an atypical storm for us," she said.

Scott said that in this case, the utility got power back on for 75 per cent of customers within 24 hours. It took the work of 450 employees called in from around B.C., working around the clock, a mobilization echoed by Sudbury Hydro crews after a storm, she said.

The work was complicated by trees falling near crews, icy roads, low visibility and even substations so frozen over the ice had to be melted off with blowtorches.

She said that in the long term, BC Hydro has no plans to make changes to how it responds to extreme ice storms or how infrastructure is built.

"Seeing ice build up in the Lower Mainland like this is a rare event," she said. "So to build for extremes like that probably doesn't make a lot of sense."

Climate change will bring storms

But CBC meteorologist Johanna Wagstaffe said that might not always be the case as climate change continues to impact our planet.

"The less severe winter events, like light snowfall, will happen less often," she said. "But the disruptive events — like last week's storm — will actually happen more often and we are already seeing this shift happen."

Marc Eliesen, a former CEO of BC Hydro in the early 1990s, said the utility needs to keep that in mind when planning for worst-case scenarios.

"This [storm] is a condition characteristic of the weather in the east, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, where freezing rain outages in Quebec are more common, which is organized to deal with freezing rain and heavy snow on the lines," he said. "This is a new phenomenon for British Columbia."

Eliesen questions whether BC Hydro has adequate equipment and crew training to deal with ice storms if they become more frequent, pointing to Hydro One storm restoration in Ontario as a comparison.

'Always something we can learn'

Scott disagrees with some of Eliesen's points.

She said some of the crews called in to deal with the recent storm come from northern B.C. and the Interior and have plenty of experience with snow.

"There's always something we can learn in every major storm situation," she said.

The idea of putting power lines underground was raised by some CBC readers and listeners, but Scott said running underground lines is five to 10 times the cost of running lines on pole, so it is done sparingly. Besides, equipment like substations and transmission lines need to be kept aboveground.

Meanwhile, Wagstaffe said that beginning Thursday, wintry weather could return to the Lower Mainland.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News