'Net Zero' Emissions Targets Not Possible Without Multiple New Nuclear Power Stations, Say Industry Leaders

Alberta Electricity Rate Cap stays despite carbon tax repeal, keeping the Regulated Rate Option at 6.8 cents/kWh. Levy funds cover market gaps as the UCP reviews NDP policies to maintain affordable utility bills.

Key Points

Program capping RRO power at 6.8 cents/kWh, using levy funds to offset market prices while the UCP reviews policy.

✅ RRO cap fixed at 6.8 cents/kWh for eligible customers

✅ Levy funds pay generators when market prices exceed the cap

✅ UCP reviewing NDP policies to ensure affordable rates

Alberta's carbon tax has been cancelled, but a consumer price cap on electricity — which the levy pays for — is staying in place for now.

June electricity rates are due out on Monday, about four days after the new UCP government did away with the carbon charge on natural gas and vehicle fuel.

Part of the levy's revenue was earmarked by the previous NDP government to keep power prices at or below 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour under new electricity rules set by the province.

"The Regulated Rate Option cap of 6.8 cents/kWh was implemented by the previous government and currently remains in effect. We are reviewing all policies put in place by the former government and will make decisions that ensure more affordable electricity rates for job-creators and Albertans," said a spokesperson for Alberta's energy ministry in an emailed statement.

Albertans with regulated rate contracts and all City of Medicine Hat utility customers only pay that amount or less, though some Alberta ratepayers have faced deferral-related arrears.

If the actual market price rises above that, the difference is paid to generators directly from levy funds, a buffer that matters as experts warn prices are set to soar later this year.

The government has paid more than $55 million to utilities over the past year ending in March 2019, due to that electricity price cap being in place.

Alberta Energy says the price gap program will continue, at least for the time being, amid electricity policy changes being considered.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Avista Takeover faces Washington UTC scrutiny as regulators deny approval; companies plan a reconsideration petition, citing acquisition terms, governance concerns, merger risks, EPS dilution, and balance sheet impacts across regulated utility operations.

Key Points

A $6.7B bid by Hydro One to buy Avista, denied by Washington UTC on governance risk, under reconsideration petition.

✅ UTC denied over potential provincial interference.

✅ Petition for reconsideration due by Dec. 17.

✅ Deal seen diluting EPS, weakening balance sheet.

Hydro One Ltd. and Avista Corp. say they plan to formally request that the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission reconsider its order last week denying approval of the $6.7-billion takeover, which previously received U.S. antitrust clearance from federal regulators, of the U.S.-based energy utility.

The two companies say they will file a petition no later than Dec. 17 but haven't indicated on what grounds they are making the request, even as investor concerns about Hydro One persist.

Under Washington State law, the UTC has 20 days to consider the petition, otherwise it is deemed to be denied.

If it reconsiders its decision, the UTC can modify the prior order or take any actions it deems appropriate, similar to provincial rulings such as the OEB decision on Hydro One's first combined T&D rates, including extending deliberations.

Washington State regulators said they would not allow Ontario's largest utility to buy Avista for fear the provincial government, which owns 47 per cent of Hydro One's shares and recently prompted a CEO and board exit at the utility, might meddle in Avista's operations.

Hydro One's shares have risen since the order because the deal, announced in July 2017, would have eroded earnings per share and weakened Hydro One's balance sheet, according to analysts, even as the company reported a one-time-boosted Q2 profit earlier this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Philippines-Canada Indo-Pacific Partnership strengthens ASEAN cooperation, maritime security, and South China Sea diplomacy, balancing U.S.-China rivalry through a rules-based order, trade diversification, and middle-power engagement to foster regional stability and sustainable growth.

Key Points

A strategic pact to balance U.S.-China rivalry, back ASEAN, and advance maritime security and a rules-based order

✅ Prioritizes ASEAN-led cooperation and regional diplomacy

✅ Supports maritime security and South China Sea stability

✅ Diversifies trade, infrastructure, energy, and education ties

The Philippines finds itself caught in a geopolitical tug-of-war between the United States and China, two superpowers with competing interests in the Indo-Pacific region. To navigate this complex situation, the Philippines is seeking closer ties with Canada, a middle power with a strong focus on diplomacy and regional cooperation and a deepening U.S.-Canada energy and minerals partnership that reinforces shared strategic interests.

The Philippines, like many Southeast Asian nations, desires peace and stability for continued economic growth. However, the intensifying rivalry between the U.S. and China threatens to disrupt this. Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, where China claims vast swathes of waters contested by the Philippines, are a major point of contention. The Philippines has a long-standing alliance with the U.S., whose current administration is viewed as better for Canada's energy sector by some observers, but it also has growing economic ties with China. This delicate balancing act is becoming increasingly difficult.

This is where Canada enters the picture. The Philippines sees Canada as a potential bridge between the two superpowers. Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo emphasizes that the future of the Indo-Pacific shouldn't be dictated by "great power rivalry." Canada, with its emphasis on peaceful solutions and its strong relationships with both the U.S. and China, despite electricity exports at risk from periodic trade tensions, presents a welcome alternative.

There are several reasons why the Philippines views Canada as a natural partner. First, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy prioritizes the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a regional bloc that includes the Philippines, and reflects trade policy debates in Ottawa where Canadians support tariffs on energy and minerals. This focus on regional cooperation aligns with the Philippines' desire for a united ASEAN voice.

Second, Canada offers the Philippines opportunities for economic diversification. While China is a significant trading partner, the Philippines wants to lessen its dependence on any single power. Canada's expertise in areas like agriculture, infrastructure, education, and renewable energy aligns with the Philippines' clean energy commitment and development goals.

Third, Canada's experience in peacekeeping and maritime security can be valuable to the Philippines. The Philippines faces challenges in the South China Sea, and Canada's commitment to a rules-based international order resonates with the Philippines' desire for peaceful resolution of territorial disputes.

Canada, for its part, sees the Philippines as a strategically important partner in the Indo-Pacific. A stronger Philippines contributes to a more stable region, which aligns with Canada's own interests. Additionally, closer ties with the Philippines open doors for increased Canadian trade and investment in Southeast Asia, including in critical minerals supply chains and energy projects.

The Philippines' pursuit of a middle ground between the U.S. and China is not without its challenges. Balancing strong relationships with both powers requires careful diplomacy, even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects domestically. However, Canada's emergence as a potential partner offers the Philippines a much-needed counterweight and a path towards regional stability and economic prosperity.

By working together, Canada and the Philippines can promote peaceful solutions, strengthen regional cooperation, and ensure that the Indo-Pacific remains a place of opportunity for all nations, not just superpowers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Europe EV Sales Slowdown signals waning incentives, economic uncertainty, and supply chain constraints, threatening climate targets and net-zero emissions goals while highlighting the need for charging infrastructure, affordable batteries, and policy support across key markets.

Key Points

Europe's early-2024 EV registrations fell as incentives waned and supply gaps persisted, putting climate targets at risk.

✅ Fewer subsidies and tax breaks cut EV affordability

✅ Inflation and recession fears dampen car purchases

✅ Supply-chain and lithium constraints limit availability

A recent slowdown in Europe's electric vehicle (EV) sales raises serious concerns about the region's ability to achieve its ambitious climate targets.  After years of steady growth, new EV registrations declined in key markets like Norway, Germany, and the U.K. in early 2024. Experts are warning that this slump jeopardizes the transition away from fossil fuels and could undermine Europe's commitment to a net-zero emissions future.

Factors Behind the Decline

Several factors are contributing to the slowdown in EV sales:

• Reduced Incentives: Many European countries have scaled back generous subsidies and tax breaks for EV purchases. While these incentives played a crucial role in driving early adoption, their reduction has made EVs less financially attractive for some consumers, with many U.K. buyers citing higher prices even after discounts.
• End of ICE Ban Support: Public support for phasing out gasoline and diesel-powered cars by 2035, a key European Union policy, appears to be waning in some areas. Without robust support for this measure, consumers may be less inclined to embrace the transition to electric vehicles.
• Economic Uncertainty: Rising inflation and fears of a recession in Europe have made consumers hesitant to invest in big-ticket purchases like new cars, regardless of fuel type. This economic uncertainty is impacting both electric and conventional vehicle sales.
• Supply Chain Constraints: Ongoing supply chain disruptions and shortages of raw materials like lithium continue to impact the availability of affordable electric vehicles. This means potential buyers face long wait times or inflated prices even when they're ready to embrace EVs.

Consequences for Europe's Green Agenda

The decline in EV sales threatens Europe's plans to reduce carbon emissions and become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, aligning with a broader push for electricity to address the climate dilemma across Europe. The transportation sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and the rapid electrification of vehicles is a pillar of Europe's decarbonization strategy.

The current slump highlights the need for continued policy support for the EV market, as EVs still trail gas models in many markets today, to ensure long-term growth and affordability for consumers. Without action, experts fear that Europe may find itself locked into a dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come, making its climate targets unreachable.

A Global Concern

Europe is a leader in electric vehicle policies and technology, during a period when global EV sales climbed markedly. The recent slowdown, however, sends a worrying signal to other regions around the world aiming to accelerate their transition to electric vehicles, including the U.S. market's Q1 dip as a cautionary example. It underscores the importance of sustained government support, investment in charging infrastructure and overcoming supply chain challenges to secure a future of widespread electric vehicle use, with many forecasts suggesting mass adoption within a decade if support continues.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Rooftop Solar Cost Shift examines PG&E rate hikes, net metering changes, and utility infrastructure spending impacts on low-income households, distributed generation, and clean energy adoption, potentially raising bills and undermining grid resilience.

Key Points

A claim that rooftop solar shifts fixed grid costs to others; critics cite PG&E rates, avoided costs, and impacts.

✅ PG&E rates outpace national average, underscoring cost drivers.

✅ Net metering cuts risk burdening low- and middle-income homes.

✅ Distributed generation avoids infrastructure spend and grid strain.

California is grappling with soaring electricity prices across the state, with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates more than double the national average and increasing at an average of 12.5% annually over the past six years. In response, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state energy agencies to identify ways to reduce power costs. However, recent policy shifts targeting rooftop solar users may exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it.

The "Cost Shift" Theory

A central justification for these pricing changes is the "cost shift" theory. This theory posits that homeowners with rooftop solar panels reduce their electricity consumption from the grid, thereby shifting the fixed costs of maintaining and operating the electrical grid onto non-solar customers. Proponents argue that this leads to higher rates for those without solar installations.

However, this theory is based on a flawed assumption: that PG&E owns 100% of the electricity generated by its customers and is entitled to full profits even for energy it does not deliver. In reality, rooftop solar users supply only about half of their energy needs and still pay for the rest. Moreover, their investments in solar infrastructure reduce grid strain and save ratepayers billions by avoiding costly infrastructure projects and reducing energy demand growth, aligning with efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid as well.

Impact on Low- and Middle-Income Households

The majority of rooftop solar users are low- and middle-income households. These individuals often invest in solar panels to lower their energy bills and reduce their carbon footprint. Policy changes that undermine the financial viability of rooftop solar disproportionately affect these communities, and efforts to overturn income-based charges add uncertainty about affordability and access.

For instance, Assembly Bill 942 proposes to retroactively alter contracts for millions of solar consumers, cutting the compensation they receive from providing energy to the grid, raising questions about major changes to your electric bill that could follow if their home is sold or transferred. This would force those with solar leases—predominantly lower-income individuals—to buy out their contracts when selling their homes, potentially incurring significant financial burdens.

The Real Drivers of Rising Energy Costs

While rooftop solar users are being blamed for rising electricity rates, calls for action have mounted as the true culprits lie elsewhere. Unchecked utility infrastructure spending has been a significant factor in escalating costs. For example, PG&E's rates have increased rapidly, yet the utility's spending on infrastructure projects has often been criticized for inefficiency and lack of accountability. Instead of targeting solar users, policymakers should scrutinize utility profit motives and infrastructure investments to identify areas where costs can be reduced without sacrificing service quality.

California's approach to addressing rising electricity costs by targeting rooftop solar users is misguided. The "cost shift" theory is based on flawed assumptions and overlooks the substantial benefits that rooftop solar provides to the grid and ratepayers. To achieve a sustainable and equitable energy future, the state must focus on controlling utility spending, promoting clean energy access for all, especially as it exports its energy policies across the West, and ensuring that policies support—not undermine—the adoption of renewable energy technologies.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News