Seattle City Light's Initiative Helps Over 93,000 Customers Reduce Electricity Bills

Yukon SMR Feasibility Study examines small modular reactors as low-emissions nuclear power for Yukon's grid and remote communities, comparing costs, safety, waste, and reliability with diesel generation, renewables, and energy efficiency.

Key Points

An official assessment of small modular reactors as low-emission power options for Yukon's grid and remote sites.

✅ Compares SMR costs vs diesel, hydro, wind, and solar

✅ Evaluates safety, waste, fuel logistics, decommissioning

✅ Considers remote community loads and grid integration

The Yukon government is looking for ways to reduce the territory's emissions, and wondering if nuclear power is one way to go.

The territory is undertaking a feasibility study, and, as some developers note, combining multiple energy sources can make better projects, to determine whether there's a future for SMRs — small modular reactors — as a low-emissions alternative to things such as diesel power.

The idea, said John Streicker, Yukon's minister of energy, mines and resources, is to bring the SMRs into the Yukon to generate electricity.

"Even the micro ones, you could consider in our remote communities or wherever you've got a point load of energy demand," Streicker said. "Especially electricity demand."

For remote coastal communities elsewhere in Canada, tidal energy is being explored as a low-emissions option as well.

SMRs are nuclear reactors that use fission to produce energy, similar to existing large reactors, but with a smaller power capacity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines reactors as "small" if their output is under 300 MW. A traditional nuclear power plant produces about three times as much power or more.

They're "modular" because they're designed to be factory-assembled, and then installed where needed. 

Several provinces have already signed an agreement supporting the development of SMRs, and in Alberta's energy mix that conversation spans both green and fossil power, and Canada's first grid-scale SMRs could be in place in Ontario by 2028 and Saskatchewan by 2032.

A year ago, the government of Yukon endorsed Canada's SMR action plan, at a time when analysts argue that zero-emission electricity by 2035 is practical and profitable, agreeing to "monitor the progress of SMR technologies throughout Canada with the goal of identifying potential for applicability in our northern jurisdiction."

The territory is now following through by hiring someone to look at whether SMRs could make sense as a cleaner-energy alternative in Yukon. 

The territorial government has set a goal of reducing emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, excluding mining emissions, even as some analyses argue that zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is possible, and "future emissions actions for post-2030 have not yet been identified," reads the government's request for proposals to do the SMR study. 

Streicker acknowledges the potential for nuclear power in Yukon is a bit of "long shot" — but says it's one that can't be ignored.

"We need to look at all possible solutions," he said, as countries such as New Zealand's electricity sector debate their future pathways.

"I don't want to give the sense like we're putting all of our emphasis and energy towards nuclear power. We're not."

According to Streicker, it's nothing more than a study at this point.

Don't bother, researcher says
Still, M.V. Ramana, a professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, said it's a study that's likely a waste of time and money. He says there's been plenty of research already, and to him, SMRs are just not a realistic option for Yukon or anywhere in Canada.

"I would say that, you know, that study can be done in two weeks by a graduate student, essentially, all right? They just have to go look at the literature on SMRs and look at the critical literature on this," Ramana said.

Ramana co-authored a research paper last year, looking at the potential for SMRs in remote communities or mine sites. The conclusion was that SMRs will be too expensive and there won't be enough demand to justify investing in them.

He said nuclear reactors are expensive, which is why their construction has "dried up" in much of the world.

"They generate electricity at very high prices," he said.

'They just have to go look at the literature,' said M.V. Ramana, a professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. (Paul Joseph)
"[For] smaller reactors, the overall costs go down. But the amount of electricity that they will generate goes down even further."

The environmental case is also shaky, according to a statement signed last year by dozens of Canadian environmental and community groups, including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Environmental Law Associaton (CELA). The statement calls SMRs a "dirty, dangerous distraction" from tackling climate change and criticized the federal government for investing in the technology.

"We have to remember that the majority of the rhetoric we hear is from nuclear advocates. And so they are promoting what I would call, and other legal scholars and academics have called, a nuclear fantasy," said Kerrie Blaise of CELA.

Blaise describes the nuclear industry as facing an unknown future, with some of North America's larger reactors set to be decommissioned in the coming years. SMRs are therefore touted as the future.

"They're looking for a solution. And so that I would say climate change presents that timely solution for them."

Blaise argues the same safety and environmental questions exist for SMRs as for any nuclear reactors — such as how to produce and transport fuel safely, what to do with waste, and how to decommission them — and those can't be glossed over in a single-minded pursuit of lower carbon emissions.  

Main focus is still renewables, minister says
Yukon's energy minister agrees, and he's eager to emphasize that the territory is not committed to anything right now beyond a study.

"Every government has a responsibility to do diligence around this," Streicker said.

A solar farm in Old Crow, Yukon. The territory's energy minister says Yukon is still primarily focussed on renewables, and energy efficiency. (Caleb Charlie)
He also dismisses the idea that studying nuclear power is any sort of distraction from his government's response to climate change right now. Yukon's main focus is still renewable energy such as solar and wind power, though Canada's solar progress is often criticized as lagging, increasing efficiency, and connecting Yukon's grid to the hydro project in Atlin, B.C., he said.

Streicker has been open to nuclear energy in the past. As a federal Green Party candidate in 2008, Streicker broke with the party line to suggest that nuclear could be a viable energy alternative. 

He acknowledges that nuclear power is always a hot-button issue, and Yukoners will have strong feelings about it. A lot will depend on how any future regulatory process works, he says.

In taking action on climate, this Arctic community wants to be a beacon to the world
Cameco signs agreement with nuclear reactor company
"There's some people that think it's the 'Hail Mary,' and some people that think it's evil incarnate," he said. 

"Buried deep within Our Clean Future [Yukon's climate change strategy], there's a line in there that says we should keep an eye on other technologies, for example, nuclear. That's what this [study] is — it's to keep an eye on it."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Blackouts expose grid reliability risks as PG&E deenergizes lines during high winds. Mandated solar and wind displace dispatchable natural gas, straining ISO load balancing, transmission maintenance, and battery storage planning amid escalating wildfire liability.

Key Points

California grid shutoffs stem from wildfire risk, renewables, and deferred transmission maintenance under mandates.

✅ PG&E deenergizes lines to reduce wildfire ignition during high winds.

✅ Mandated solar and wind displace dispatchable gas, raising balancing costs.

✅ Storage, reliability pricing, and grid upgrades are needed to stabilize supply.

California is again facing widespread blackouts this season. Politicians are scrambling to assign blame to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) a heavily regulated utility that can only do what the politically appointed regulators say it can do. In recent years this has meant building a bunch of solar and wind projects, while decommissioning reliable sources of power and scrimping on power line maintenance and upgrades.

The blackouts are connected with the legal liability from old and improperly maintained power lines being blamed for sparking fires—in hopes that deenergizing the grid during high winds reduces the likelihood of fires. 

How did the land of Silicon Valley and Hollywood come to have developing world electricity?

California’s Democratic majority, from Gov. Gavin Newsom to the solidly progressive legislature, to the regulators they appoint, have demanded huge increases in renewable energy. Renewable electricity targets have been pushed up, and policymakers are weighing a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid, with the state expected to reach a goal of 33% of its power from renewable sources, mostly solar and wind, by next year, and 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2030.

In 2018, 31% of the electricity Californians purchased at the retail level came from approved renewables. But when rooftop solar is added to the mix, about 34% of California’s electricity came from renewables in 2018. Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems installed “behind-the-meter” (BTM) displace utility-supplied generation, but still affect the grid at large, as electricity must be generated at the moment it is consumed. PV installations in California grew 20% from 2017 to 2018, benefiting from the state’s Self-Generation Incentive Program that offers hefty rebates through 2025, as well as a 30% federal tax credit.

Increasingly large amounts of periodic, renewable power comes at a price—the more there is, the more difficult it is to keep the power grid stable and energized. Since electricity must be consumed the instant it is generated, and because wind and solar produce what they will whenever they do, the rest of the grid’s power producers—mostly natural gas plants—have to make up any differences between supply and immediate demand. This load balancing is vital, because without it, the grid will crash and widespread blackouts will ensue.

California often produces a surplus of mandated solar and wind power, generated for 5 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour. This power displaces dispatchable power from natural gas, coal and nuclear plants, resulting in reliable power plants spending less time online and driving up electricity prices as the plants operate for fewer hours of the day. Subsidized and mandated solar power, along with a law passed in California in 2006 (SB 1638) that bans the renewal of coal-fired power contracts, has placed enormous economic pressure on the Western region’s coal power plants—among them, the nation’s largest, Navajo Generating Station. As these plants go off line, the Western power grid will become increasingly unstable. Eventually, the states that share their electric power in the Western Interconnect may have to act to either subsidize dispatchable power or place a value on reliability—something that was taken for granted in the growth of the America’s electrical system and its regulatory scheme.

California law regarding electricity explicitly states that “a violation of the Public Utilities Act is a crime” and that it is “…the intent of the Legislature to provide for the evolution of the ISO (California’s Independent System Operator—the entity that manages California’s grid) into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states.” In other words, California expects to dictate how the Western grid operates.

One last note as to what drives much of California’s energy policy: politics. California State Senator Kevin de León (the author served with him in the State Assembly) drafted SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act. It became law in 2015. Sen. de León followed up with SB 100 in 2018, signed into law weeks before the 2018 election. SB 100 increased California’s renewable portfolio standard to 60% by 2030 and further requires all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free sources by 2045, a capstone of the state’s climate policies that factor into the blackout debate.  

Sen. de León used his environmental credentials to burnish his run for the U.S. Senate against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, eventually capturing the endorsements of the California Democratic Party and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, now running for president. Feinstein and de León advanced to the general in California’s jungle primary, where Feinstein won reelection 54.2% to 45.8%.

De León may have lost his race for the U.S. Senate, but his legacy will live on in increasingly unaffordable electricity and blackouts, not only in California, but in the rest of the Western United States—unless federal or state regulators begin to place a value on reliability. This could be done by requiring utility scale renewable power providers to guarantee dispatchable power, as policymakers try to avert a looming shortage of firm capacity, either through purchase agreements with thermal power plants or through the installation of giant and costly battery farms or other energy storage means.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canadian Hydropower Transmission delivers HVDC clean energy via New England Clean Energy Connect and Champlain Hudson Power Express, linking HydroQuébec to Maine and New York grids for renewable energy, decarbonization, and lower wholesale electricity rates.

Key Points

HVDC delivery of HydroQuébec power to New England and New York via NECEC and CHPE, cutting emissions and costs.

✅ 1,200 MW via NECEC; 1,000 MW via CHPE.

✅ HVDC routes: 145-mile NECEC and 333-mile CHPE.

✅ Debates: land impacts, climate justice, wholesale rates.

As the sole residents of unorganized territory T5 R7 deep within Maine's North Woods, Duane Hanson and his wife, Sally Kwan, have watched the land around them—known for its natural beauty, diverse wildlife and recreational fishing—transformed by decades of development. 

But what troubles them most is what could happen in the next few months. State and corporate officials are pushing for construction of a 53-mile-long power line corridor cutting right through the woods and abutting the wild lands surrounding Hanson's property. 

If its proponents succeed, Hanson fears the corridor may represent the beginning of the end of his ability to live "off the land" away from the noise of technology-obsessed modern society. Soon, that noise may be in his backyard. 

"I moved here to be in the pristine wilderness," said Hanson.
 
With his life in what he considers the last "wild" place left on the East Coast on the line, the stakes have never felt higher to Hanson—and many across New England, as well.

The corridor is part of the New England Clean Energy Connect, one of two major and highly controversial transmission line projects meant to deliver Canadian hydropower from the government-owned utility HydroQuébec, in a province that has closed the door on nuclear power, to New England electricity consumers. 

As New England states rush to green their electric grids and combat the accelerating climate crisis, the simultaneous push from Canada to expand the market for hydroelectric power from its vast water resources, including Manitoba's clean energy, has offered these states a critical lifeline at just the right moment. 

The other big hydropower transmission line project will deliver 1,000 megawatts of power, or enough to serve approximately one million residential customers, to the New York City metropolitan area, which includes the city, Long Island, and parts of the Hudson Valley, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. 

The 333-mile-long Champlain Hudson Power Express project will consist of two high voltage direct current cables running underground and underwater from Canada, beneath Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, to Astoria, Queens. 

There, the Champlain Hudson project will interconnect to a sector of the New York electricity grid where city and corporate officials say the hydropower supplied can help reduce the fossil fuels that currently comprise significantly more of the base load than in other parts of the state. Though New York has yet to finalize a contract with HydroQuébec over its hydropower purchase, developers plan to start construction on the $2.2 billion project in 2021 and say it will be operational in 2025. 

The New England project consists of 145 miles of new HVDC transmission line that will run largely above ground from the Canadian border, through Maine to Massachusetts. The $1 billion project, funded by Massachusetts electricity consumers, is expected to deliver 1,200 megawatts of clean energy to the New England energy grid, becoming the region's largest clean energy source. 

Central Maine Power, which will construct the Maine transmission corridor, says the project will decrease wholesale electric rates and create thousands of jobs. Company officials expect to receive all necessary permits and begin construction by the year's end, with the project completed and in service by 2020. 

With only months until developers start making both projects on-the-ground realities, they have seized public attention within, and beyond, their regions. 

Hanson is one among many concerned New England and New York residents who've joined the ranks of environmental activists in a contentious battle with public and corporate officials over the place of Canadian hydropower in their states' clean energy futures. 

Officials and transmission line proponents say importing Canadian hydropower offers an immediate and feasible way to help decarbonize electricity portfolios in New York and New England and to address existing transmission constraints that limit cross-border flows today, supporting their broader efforts to combat climate change. 

But some environmental activists say hydropower has a significant carbon footprint of its own. They fear the projects will make states look "greener" at the expense of the local environment, Indigenous communities, and ultimately, the climate. 

"We're talking about the most environmentally and economically just pathway" to decarbonization, said Annel Hernandez, associate director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. "Canadian hydro is not going to provide that." 

To that end, environmental groups opposing Canadian hydropower say New York and New England should seize the moment to expedite local development of wind and solar power. 

Paul Gallay, president of the nonprofit environmental organization Riverkeeper—which withdrew its initial support for the Champlain Hudson Power Express last November— believes New York has the capacity to develop enough in-state renewable energy sources to meet its clean energy goals, without the new transmission line. 

Yet New York City's analysis shows clearly that Canadian hydropower is critical for its clean energy strategy, said Dan Zarrilli, director of OneNYC and New York City's chief climate policy adviser. 

"We need every bit of clean energy we can get our hands on," he said, to meet the city's goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and help achieve the state's clean energy mandates. 

Removing Canadian hydropower from the equation, said Zarilli, would commit the city to the "unacceptable outcome" of burning more gas. The city's marginalized communities would likely suffer most from the resulting air pollution and associated health impacts. 

While the two camps debate Canadian hydropower's carbon footprint and what climate justice requires, this much is clear: When it comes to pursuing a zero-carbon future, there are no easy answers. 

Hydropower's Carbon Footprint
Many people take for granted that because hydropower production doesn't involve burning fossil fuels, it's a carbon-neutral endeavor. But that's not always the case, depending on where hydropower is sourced. 

Large-scale hydropower projects often involve the creation of hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, and, in some cases, repowering existing dams to generate clean electricity. The release and flow of water from the reservoir through the dam provides the energy necessary to generate hydropower, which long-distance power lines, or transmission lines, carry to its intended destination—in this case, New England and New York. 

The initial process of flooding land to create a hydroelectric reservoir can have a sizable carbon footprint, especially in heavily vegetated areas. It causes the vegetation and soil underwater to decompose, releasing carbon dioxide and methane—a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide. 

Hydropower accounts for 60 percent of Canada's electricity generation, and HydroQuébec has planned to increase capacity to 37,000 MW in 2021, with the nation second only to China in the percentage of the world's total hydroelectricity it generates. By contrast, hydropower only accounts for seven percent of U.S. utility-scale electricity generation, making it a foreign concept to many Americans. 

As New England works to introduce substantial amounts of Canadian hydropower to its electricity grid, hydropower proponents are promoting it as a prime source for clean electricity, and new NB Power agreements are expanding regional transfers within Canada as well. 

Last fall, Central Maine Power formed its own political action committee, Clean Energy Matters, to advance the New England hydropower project. Together with HydroQuébec, the Maine utility has spent nearly $17 million campaigning for the project this year. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

KHNP Shortlisted for Belene Nuclear Power Plant, named by the Bulgarian Energy Ministry alongside Rosatom and CNNC; highlights APR1400 reactor expertise, EPC credentials, and expansion into the European nuclear energy market.

Key Points

KHNP is a strategic investor candidate for Bulgaria's Belene NPP, leveraging APR1400 and European market entry.

✅ Selected with Rosatom and CNNC by Bulgarian Energy Ministry

✅ Builds on APR1400 reactor design and EPC track record

✅ Positions KHNP for EU nuclear projects and O&M services

Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) has been selected as one of the three strategic investor candidates for a Bulgarian nuclear power plant project amid global nuclear project milestones worldwide.

The Bulgarian Energy Ministry selected KHNP of Korea, RosAtom of Russia and CNNC of China as strategic investor candidates for the construction of the Belene Nuclear Power Plant, KHNP said on Dec. 20. The Belene Nuclear Power Plant is the second nuclear power plant that Bulgaria plans to build following the 2,000-megawatt Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant built in 1991 during the Soviet Union era. The project budget is estimated at 10 billion euros.

By being included in the shortlist for the Bulgarian project, KHNP has boosted the possibility of making a foray into the European nuclear power plant market, as India takes steps to get nuclear back on track worldwide. KHNP began to export nuclear power plants in 2009 by winning the UAE Barakah Nuclear Power Plant Project, with Barakah Unit 1 reaching 100% power as it moves toward commercial operations. The UAE plant will be based on the APR1400, a next-generation Korean nuclear reactor that is used in Shin Kori Units 3 and 4 in Korea.

The ARP1400 is a Korean nuclear reactor developed by KHNP with investment of about 230 billion won for 10 years from 1992. The nuclear reactor became the first non-U.S. type reactor to receive a design certificate (DC) from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as China's nuclear energy program continues on a steady development track globally. By receiving the DC, its safety was internationally recognized. In June, the company also won the maintenance project for the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, completing the entire cycle from the construction of the nuclear power plant to its design, operation and maintenance. However, U.S. and U.K. companies took part of the maintenance project for the nuclear power plant.

In July, KHNP officials visited Turkey and contacted local energy officials to prepare for nuclear power plant projects to be launched in that country, as Bangladesh develops nuclear power with IAEA assistance in the region. Earlier in May, the company also submitted a proposal to participate in the construction of a new nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan, while Kenya moves forward with plans for a $5 billion plant.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Oil Majors Energy Transition highlights BP, Shell, and Total rapidly scaling renewables, wind and solar assets, hydrogen, electricity, and EV charging while cutting upstream capex, aligning with net-zero goals and utility-style energy services.

Key Points

It is the shift by BP, Shell, Total and peers toward renewables, electricity, hydrogen, and EV charging to meet net-zero goals.

✅ Offshore wind, solar, and hydrogen projects scale across Europe

✅ Capex shifts, fossil output declines, net-zero targets by 2050

✅ EV charging, utilities, and power trading become core services

Under pressure from governments and investors, including rising investor pressure at utilities that reverberates across the sector, industry leaders like BP and Shell are accelerating their production of cleaner energy.

This may turn out to be the year that oil giants, especially in Europe, started looking more like electric companies.

Late last month, Royal Dutch Shell won a deal to build a vast wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. Earlier in the year, France’s Total, which owns a battery maker, agreed to make several large investments in solar power in Spain and a wind farm off Scotland. Total also bought an electric and natural gas utility in Spain and is joining Shell and BP in expanding its electric vehicle charging business.

At the same time, the companies are ditching plans to drill more wells as they chop back capital budgets. Shell recently said it would delay new fields in the Gulf of Mexico and in the North Sea, while BP has promised not to hunt for oil in any new countries.

Prodded by governments and investors to address climate change concerns about their products, Europe’s oil companies are accelerating their production of cleaner energy — usually electricity, sometimes hydrogen — and promoting natural gas, which they argue can be a cleaner transition fuel from coal and oil to renewables, as carbon emissions drop in power generation.

For some executives, the sudden plunge in demand for oil caused by the pandemic — and the accompanying collapse in earnings — is another warning that unless they change the composition of their businesses, they risk being dinosaurs headed for extinction.

This evolving vision is more striking because it is shared by many longtime veterans of the oil business.

“During the last six years, we had extreme volatility in the oil commodities,” said Claudio Descalzi, 65, the chief executive of Eni, who has been with that Italian company for nearly 40 years. He said he wanted to build a business increasingly based on green energy rather than oil.

“We want to stay away from the volatility and the uncertainty,” he added.

Bernard Looney, a 29-year BP veteran who became chief executive in February, recently told journalists, “What the world wants from energy is changing, and so we need to change, quite frankly, what we offer the world.”

The bet is that electricity will be the prime means of delivering cleaner energy in the future and, therefore, will grow rapidly as clean-energy investment incentives scale globally.

American giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron have been slower than their European counterparts to commit to climate-related goals that are as far reaching, analysts say, partly because they face less government and investor pressure (although Wall Street investors are increasingly vocal of late).

“We are seeing a much bigger differentiation in corporate strategy” separating American and European oil companies “than at any point in my career,” said Jason Gammel, a veteran oil analyst at Jefferies, an investment bank.

Companies like Shell and BP are trying to position themselves for an era when they will rely much less on extracting natural resources from the earth than on providing energy as a service tailored to the needs of customers — more akin to electric utilities than to oil drillers.

They hope to take advantage of the thousands of engineers on their payrolls to manage the construction of new types of energy plants; their vast networks of retail stations to provide services like charging electric vehicles; and their trading desks, which typically buy and hedge a wide variety of energy futures, to arrange low-carbon energy supplies for cities or large companies.

All of Europe’s large oil companies have now set targets to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Most have set a ”net zero” ambition by 2050, a goal also embraced by governments like the European Union and Britain.

The companies plan to get there by selling more and more renewable energy and by investing in carbon-free electricity across their portfolios, and, in some cases, by offsetting emissions with so-called nature-based solutions like planting forests to soak up carbon.

Electricity is the key to most of these strategies. Hydrogen, a clean-burning gas that can store energy and generate electric power for vehicles, also plays an increasingly large role.

The coming changes are clearest at BP. Mr. Looney said this month that he planned to increase investment in low-emission businesses like renewable energy by tenfold in the next decade to $5 billion a year, while cutting back oil and gas production by 40 percent. By 2030, BP aims to generate renewable electricity comparable to a few dozen large offshore wind farms.

Mr. Looney, though, has said oil and gas production need to be retained to generate cash to finance the company’s future.

Environmentalists and analysts described Mr. Looney’s statement that BP’s oil and gas production would decline in the future as a breakthrough that would put pressure on other companies to follow.

BP’s move “clearly differentiates them from peers,” said Andrew Grant, an analyst at Carbon Tracker, a London nonprofit. He noted that most other oil companies had so far been unwilling to confront “the prospect of producing less fossil fuels.”

While there is skepticism in both the environmental and the investment communities about whether century-old companies like BP and Shell can learn new tricks, they do bring scale and know-how to the task.

“To make a switch from a global economy that depends on fossil fuels for 80 percent of its energy to something else is a very, very big job,” said Daniel Yergin, the energy historian who has a forthcoming book, “The New Map,” on the global energy transition now occurring in energy. But he noted, “These companies are really good at big, complex engineering management that will be required for a transition of that scale.”

Financial analysts say the dreadnoughts are already changing course.

“They are doing it because management believes it is the right thing to do and also because shareholders are severely pressuring them,” said Michele Della Vigna, head of natural resources research at Goldman Sachs.

Already, he said, investments by the large oil companies in low-carbon energy have risen to as much as 15 percent of capital spending, on average, for 2020 and 2021 and around 50 percent if natural gas is included.

Oswald Clint, an analyst at Bernstein, forecast that the large oil companies would expand their renewable-energy businesses like wind, solar and hydrogen by around 25 percent or more each year over the next decade.

Shares in oil companies, once stock market stalwarts, have been marked down by investors in part because of the risk that climate change concerns will erode demand for their products. European electric companies are perceived as having done more than the oil industry to embrace the new energy era.

“It is very tricky for an investor to have confidence that they can pull this off,” Mr. Clint said, referring to the oil industry’s aspirations to change.

But, he said, he expects funds to flow back into oil stocks as the new businesses gather momentum.

At times, supplying electricity has been less profitable than drilling for oil and gas. Executives, though, figure that wind farms and solar parks are likely to produce more predictable revenue, partly because customers want to buy products labeled green.

Mr. Descalzi of Eni said converted refineries in Venice and Sicily that the company uses to make lower-carbon fuel from plant matter have produced better financial results in this difficult year than its traditional businesses.

Oil companies insist that they must continue with some oil and gas investments, not least because those earnings can finance future energy sources. “Not to make any mistake,” Patrick Pouyanné, chief executive of Total, said to analysts recently: Low-cost oil projects will be a part of the future.

During the pandemic, BP, Total and Shell have all scrutinized their portfolios, partly to determine if climate change pressures and lingering effects from the pandemic mean that petroleum reserves on their books — developed for perhaps billions of dollars, when oil was at the center of their business — might never be produced or earn less than previously expected. These exercises have led to tens of billions of dollars of write-offs for the second quarter, and there are likely to be more as companies recalibrate their plans.

“We haven’t seen the last of these,” said Luke Parker, vice president for corporate analysis at Wood Mackenzie, a market research firm. “There will be more to come as the realities of the energy transition bite.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News