UK's Energy Transition Stalled by Supply Delays

Renewables Overtake Coal in the US, as solar, wind, and hydro expand grid share; EIA data show an energy transition accelerated by COVID-19, slashing emissions, displacing fossil fuels, and reshaping electricity generation and climate policy.

Key Points

It refers to the milestone where US renewable energy generation surpassed coal, marking a pivotal energy transition.

✅ EIA data show renewables topped coal consumption in 2019.

✅ Solar, wind, and hydro displaced aging, costly coal plants.

✅ COVID-19 demand drop accelerated the energy transition.

Solar, wind and other renewable sources have toppled coal in energy generation in the United States for the first time in over 130 years, with the coronavirus pandemic accelerating a decline in coal that has profound implications for the climate crisis.

Not since wood was the main source of American energy in the 19th century has a renewable resource been used more heavily than coal, but 2019 saw a historic reversal, building on wind and solar reaching 10% of U.S. generation in 2018, according to US government figures.

Coal consumption fell by 15%, down for the sixth year in a row, while renewables edged up by 1%, even as U.S. electricity use trended lower. This meant renewables surpassed coal for the first time since at least 1885, a year when Mark Twain published The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and America’s first skyscraper was erected in Chicago.

Electricity generation from coal fell to its lowest level in 42 years in 2019, with the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting that renewables will eclipse coal as an electricity source this year, while a global eclipse by 2025 is also projected. On 21 May, the year hit its 100th day in which renewables have been used more heavily than coal.

“Coal is on the way out, we are seeing the end of coal,” said Dennis Wamsted, analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “We aren’t going to see a big resurgence in coal generation, the trend is pretty clear.”

The ongoing collapse of coal would have been nearly unthinkable a decade ago, when the fuel source accounted for nearly half of America’s generated electricity, even as a brief uptick in 2021 was anticipated. That proportion may fall to under 20% this year, with analysts predicting a further halving within the coming decade.

A rapid slump since then has not been reversed despite the efforts of the Trump administration, which has dismantled a key Barack Obama-era climate rule to reduce emissions from coal plants and eased requirements that prevent coal operations discharging mercury into the atmosphere and waste into streams.

Coal releases more planet-warming carbon dioxide than any other energy source, with scientists warning its use must be rapidly phased out to achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050 and avoid the worst ravages of the climate crisis.

Countries including the UK and Germany are in the process of winding down their coal sectors, and in Europe renewables are increasingly crowding out gas as well, although in the US the industry still enjoys strong political support from Trump.

“It’s a big moment for the market to see renewables overtake coal,” said Ben Nelson, lead coal analyst at Moody’s. “The magnitude of intervention to aid coal has not been sufficient to fundamentally change its trajectory, which is sharply downwards.”

Nelson said he expects coal production to plummet by a quarter this year but stressed that declaring the demise of the industry is “a very tough statement to make” due to ongoing exports of coal and its use in steel-making. There are also rural communities with power purchase agreements with coal plants, meaning these contracts would have to end before coal use was halted.

The coal sector has been beset by a barrage of problems, predominantly from cheap, abundant gas that has displaced it as a go-to energy source. The Covid-19 outbreak has exacerbated this trend, even as global power demand has surged above pre-pandemic levels. With plunging electricity demand following the shutting of factories, offices and retailers, utilities have plenty of spare energy to choose from and coal is routinely the last to be picked because it is more expensive to run than gas, solar, wind or nuclear.

Many US coal plants are ageing and costly to operate, forcing hundreds of closures over the past decade. Just this year, power companies have announced plans to shutter 13 coal plants, including the large Edgewater facility outside Sheboygan, Wisconsin, the Coal Creek Station plant in North Dakota and the Four Corners generating station in New Mexico – one of America’s largest emitters of carbon dioxide.

The last coal facility left in New York state closed earlier this year.

The additional pressure of the pandemic “will likely shutter the US coal industry for good”, said Yuan-Sheng Yu, senior analyst at Lux Research. “It is becoming clear that Covid-19 will lead to a shake-up of the energy landscape and catalyze the energy transition, with investors eyeing new energy sector plays as we emerge from the pandemic.”

Climate campaigners have cheered the decline of coal but in the US the fuel is largely being replaced by gas, which burns more cleanly than coal but still emits a sizable amount of carbon dioxide and methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, in its production, whereas in the EU wind and solar overtook gas last year.

Renewables accounted for 11% of total US energy consumption last year – a share that will have to radically expand if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. Petroleum made up 37% of the total, followed by gas at 32%. Renewables marginally edged out coal, while nuclear stood at 8%.

“Getting past coal is a big first hurdle but the next round will be the gas industry,” said Wamsted. “There are emissions from gas plants and they are significant. It’s certainly not over.”
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.

Key Points

Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.

✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset

✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves

✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk

Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick. 

The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.

At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.

The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”

But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.

In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables. 

And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.

It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.

California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.

Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.

Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”

The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.

Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.

California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.

Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.

California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.

There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.

Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.

California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.

After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.” 

“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Ontario-Quebec Electricity Trade Agreement ends as Ontario pivots to IESO procurement, hydropower alternatives, natural gas capacity, and energy auctions, impacting grid reliability, power imports, and GHG emissions across both provincial markets.

Key Points

A seven-year power import pact; Ontario will end it, shifting to IESO procurement and gas capacity.

✅ Seasonal hydropower exchange of 2.3 TWh annually.

✅ IESO projects Quebec supply constraints by decade end.

✅ Ontario adds gas, auctions; near-term sector GHGs rise.

The Ontario government does not plan to renew the Ontario-Quebec electricity trade agreement, Radio-Canada is reporting.

The seven-year contract, which expires next year, aims to reduce Ontario's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by buying 2.3 Terawatt-hours of electricity from Quebec annually — that corresponds to about seven per cent of Hydro-Quebec's average annual exports.

The announcement comes as the provincially owned Quebec utility continues its legal battle over a plan to export power to Massachusetts.

The Ontario agreement has guaranteed a seasonal exchange of energy, since Quebec has a power surplus in summer, and the province's electricity needs increase in the winter. Ontario plans on exercising its last and only option in the summer of 2026, for a block of 500 megawatts.

The office of the Ontario Minister of Energy Todd Smith says the province will save money by relying "on a competitive procurement process" instead, amid debates over clean, affordable electricity policy in Ontario. And, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the equivalent of Hydro-Quebec in Ontario, added that, at any rate, Quebec is expected to "run out of electricity in the middle or at the end of the decade."

During the Quebec election campaign, Premier Francois Legault said his province needed to increase hydroelectricity production because he is expecting demand for hydroelectricity to increase by an additional 100 terawatt-hours in the coming decades — half of Hydro-Quebec's current annual output.

Coalition Avenir Quebec pitches more hydro dams to Quebec voters
The provinces will still continue to buy and sell power, reaching deals through annual energy auctions.

Eloise Edom, an associate researcher at Polytechnique Montreal's Institut de l'energie Trottier, says the announcement came as somewhat of a surprise because "we're still talking about a lot of energy."

Hydro-Quebec refused to comment on "the SIERE [Independent Electricity System Operator]'s intentions for the agreement, which ends next year," said company spokesperson Lynn St-Laurent.

No green options
Yet Ontario is running out of electricity, even as questions persist about whether it is embracing clean power to meet demand, in part because of plans to refurbish nuclear reactors at the Bruce and Darlington generator stations.

Windsor has already lost out on a $2.5-billion factory because the region is short of electricity for new industrial loads. And by 2025, Toronto will run out of power for the electrification of its transit system, according to the latest estimates from the IESO.

The Ford government recently announced that it hopes to extend the life of the Pickering nuclear station amid ongoing debate. It is also evaluating the possibility of increasing hydroelectricity production at its existing dams.

For now, Ontario is banking on its natural gas plants to meet demand, which have won most recent IESO tenders for contracts running until 2026. Last Friday, the province announced that it was going to buy an additional 1,500 megawatts by 2027.

"The [Ontario energy] minister's expectations may be that the increase in natural gas prices is temporary and that it will fade," energy economist Jean-Thomas Bernard said. "With this in mind, he probably does not want to sign a long-term contract [with Hydro-Quebec] and prefers to buy electricity on a day-to-day basis and through calls for tenders."

If the Quebec deal expires, Ontario, Canada's second highest GHG emitter, would have to increase its emissions for the sector, at least in the medium term, with electricity getting dirtier as gas fills the gap.

Last year, the IESO found that it would be very difficult to set a moratorium on natural gas before 2030. The IESO must produce a final report on the subject for the energy minister by the end of November.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine nuclear safety risks escalate as IAEA warns of power grid attacks threatening reactor cooling, diesel generators, and Zaporizhzhia oversight, prompting UN calls for demilitarized zones to prevent radioactive releases and accidents.

Key Points

Escalating threats from grid attacks and outages that jeopardize reactor cooling, IAEA oversight, and public safety.

✅ Power grid strikes threaten reactor cooling systems.

✅ Emergency diesel generators are last defense lines.

✅ Calls grow for demilitarized zones around plants.

In early February 2025, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expressed grave concerns regarding the safety of Ukraine's nuclear facilities amid ongoing Russian attacks on the country's power grids, as Kyiv warned of a difficult winter without power after deadly strikes on energy infrastructure. Grossi's warnings highlight the escalating risks to nuclear safety and the potential for catastrophic accidents.

The Threat to Nuclear Safety

Ukraine's nuclear infrastructure, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant—the largest in Europe—relies heavily on a stable power supply to maintain critical cooling systems and other safety measures. Russian military operations targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure have led to power outages, and created hazards akin to those highlighted in downed power line safety guidance during emergency repairs, jeopardizing the safe operation of these facilities. Grossi emphasized that such disruptions could result in severe nuclear accidents if cooling systems fail.

IAEA's Response and Actions

In response to these threats, the IAEA has been actively involved in monitoring and assessing the situation. Grossi visited Kyiv to inspect electrical substations and discuss safety measures with Ukrainian officials. He underscored the necessity of ensuring uninterrupted power to nuclear plants and the critical role of emergency diesel generators as a last line of defense, and noted that maintaining staffing continuity, including measures such as staff living on site at critical facilities, may be necessary. The IAEA has also postponed the rotation of its mission at the Zaporizhzhia plant due to security concerns, as reported by Reuters.

International Concerns and Diplomatic Efforts

The international community has expressed deep concern over the potential for nuclear accidents in Ukraine, echoing earlier grid overseer warnings about systemic risks in other crises that stress energy systems. The United Nations and various countries have called for the establishment of a demilitarized zone around nuclear facilities to prevent military activities that could compromise their safety. Diplomatic efforts are ongoing to facilitate dialogue between Russia and Ukraine, aiming to ensure the protection of nuclear sites and the safety of surrounding populations.

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, located in southeastern Ukraine, has been under Russian control since early in the conflict, with Rosatom cooperation agreements reflecting broader nuclear policy priorities that frame Moscow's approach to the sector. The plant consists of six reactors and has been a focal point of international concern due to its size and the potential consequences of any incident. The IAEA has been working to maintain oversight and ensure the plant's safety amid the ongoing conflict.

Potential Consequences of Nuclear Accidents

A nuclear accident at any of Ukraine's nuclear facilities could have catastrophic consequences, including the release of radioactive materials, displacement of populations, and long-term environmental damage, with communities potentially facing weeks without electricity and basic services in the aftermath. The proximity of these plants to densely populated areas further amplifies the risks. The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, emphasizing the need for immediate action to safeguard nuclear facilities.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has introduced unprecedented challenges to nuclear safety. The IAEA's warnings and actions underscore the critical need for international cooperation to protect nuclear facilities from the dangers posed by military activities. Ensuring the safety of these sites is paramount to prevent potential disasters that could have far-reaching humanitarian and environmental impacts, and sustained attention to nuclear workers' safety concerns helps maintain operational readiness under strain.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News