Chevy Volt is green car of the year

US energy mix shows how the electric grid blends renewables, fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro, varying by ISO/RTO markets, utilities, and state policies, affecting carbon emissions, pricing, reliability, and access.

Key Points

The US energy mix is the grid's source breakdown by region: fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear, and hydro.

✅ Check ISO or RTO dashboards for real-time generation by fuel source.

✅ Utilities may offer green power plans or RECs at modest premiums.

✅ Energy mix shifts with policy, pricing, and grid reliability needs.

There are few resources more important than energy. Sure, you may die if you don't eat for days. But your phone will die if you go too long without charging it. Energy feeds tech, the internet, city infrastructure, refrigerators, lights, and has evolved throughout U.S. history in profound ways. You get the idea. Yet unlike our other common needs, such as food, energy sources aren't exactly front of mind for most people. 

"I think a lot of people don't put a lot of bandwidth into thinking about this part of their lives," said Richard McMahon, the SVP of energy supply and finance at Edison Electric Institute, a trade group that represents investor-owned electric companies in the US. 

It makes sense. For most Americans, electricity is always there, and in many locations, there's not much of a choice involved, even as electricity demand is flat across the U.S. today. You sign up with a utility when you move into a new residence and pay your bills when they're due. 

But there's an important reality that indifference eschews: In 2018, a third of the energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions in the US came from the electric power sector, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

A good chunk of that is from the residential sector, which consistently uses more energy than commercial customers, per EIA data.

Just as many people exercise choice when they eat, you typically also have a choice when it comes to your energy supply. That's not to say your current offering isn't what you want, or that switching will be easy or affordable, but "if you're a customer and want power with a certain attribute," McMahon said, "you can pretty much get it wherever you are." 

But first, you need to know the energy mix you have right now. As it turns out, it's not so straightforward. At all.

This brief guide may help. 

For some utility providers, you can find out if it publishes the energy mix online. Dominion Energy, which serves Idaho, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, provides this information in a colored graphic. 

"Once you figure out who your utility is you can figure out what mix of resources they use," said Heidi Ratz, an electricity markets researcher at the World Resources Institute.

But not all utilities publish this information.

It has to do with their role in the grid and reflects utility industry trends in structure and markets. Some utility companies are vertically integrated; they generate power through nuclear plants or wind farms and distribute those electrons directly to their customers. Other utilities just distribute the power that different companies produce. 

Consider Consolidated Edison, or Con Ed, which distributes energy to parts of New York City. While reporting this story, Business Insider could not find information about the utility's energy mix online. When reached for comment, a spokesperson said, "we're indifferent to where it comes from."

That's because, in New York, distribution utilities like Con Ed often buy energy through a wholesale marketplace.

Take a look at this map. If you live in one of the colored regions, your electricity is sold on a wholesale market regulated by an organization called a regional transmission organization (RTO) or independent system operator (ISO). Distribution utilities like Con Ed often buy their energy through these markets, based on availability and cost, while raising questions about future utility revenue models as prices shift. 

Still, it's pretty easy to figure out where your energy comes from. Just look up the ISO or RTO website (such as NYISO or CAISO). Usually, these organizations will provide energy supply information in near-real time. 

That's exactly what Con Edison (which buys energy on the NYISO marketplace) suggested. As of Friday morning, roughly 40% of the energy on the market place was natural gas or other fossil fuels, 34% was nuclear, and about 22% was hydro. 

If you live in another region governed by an ISO or RTO, such as in most of California, you can do the same thing. Like NYISO, CAISO has a dashboard that shows (again, as of Friday morning) about 36% of the energy on the market comes from natural gas and more than 20% comes from renewables. 

In the map linked above, you'll notice that some of the ISOs and RTOs like MISO encompass enormous regions. That means that even if you figure out where the energy in your market comes from, it's not going to be geographically specific. But there are a couple of ways to drill down even further. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has a straightforward tool called Power Profiler. You can enter your zip code to see the fuel mix in your area. But it's not perfect. The data are from 2016 and, in some regions of the country like the upper Midwest, they aren't much more localized, and some import dirty electricity due to regional trading. 

The World Resources Institute also has a tool that allows you to see the electricity mix by state, based on 2017 data from EIA. These numbers represent power generation, not the electricity actually flowing into your sockets, but they offer a rough idea of what energy resources are operating in your state. 

One option is to check with your utility to see if it has a "green power" offering. Over 600 utilities across the country have one, according to the Climate Reality Project, though they often come at a slightly higher cost. It's typically on the scale of just a few more cents per kilowatt-hour. 

There are also independent, consumer-facing companies like Arcadia and Green Mountain Energy that allow you to source renewable energy, by virtually connecting you to community solar projects or purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates, or RECs, on your behalf, as America goes electric and more options emerge. 

"RECs measure an investment in a clean energy resource," Ratz said, in an email. "The goal of putting that resource on the grid is to push out the need for dirtier resources."

The good news: Even if you do nothing, your energy mix will get cleaner. Coal production has fallen to lows not seen since the 1980s, amid disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors that affect reliability and costs, while renewable electricity generation has doubled since 2008. So whether you like it or not, you'll be roped into the clean energy boom one way or another. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Australia Clean Energy Target drives renewables in the National Electricity Market, with RepuTex modelling and the Finkel Review showing lower wholesale prices and emissions as gas generators set prices less often under ambitious targets.

Key Points

Policy boosting low emissions generation to cut electricity emissions and lower wholesale prices across Australia.

✅ Ambitious targets lower wholesale prices through added generation

✅ RepuTex modelling shows renewables displace costly gas peakers

✅ Finkel Review suggests CET cuts emissions and boosts reliability

The more ambitious a clean energy target is, the lower Australian wholesale electricity prices will be, according to new modelling by energy analysis firm RepuTex.

The Finkel review, released last month recommended the government introduce a clean energy target (CET), which it found would cut emissions from the national electricity market and put downward pressure on both wholesale and retail prices, aligning with calls to favor consumers over generators in market design.

The Finkel review only modelled a CET that would cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% below 2005 levels by 2030. But all available analysis has demonstrated that such a cut would not be enough to meet Australia’s overall emissions reductions made as part of the Paris agreement, which themselves were too weak to help meet the central aim of that agreement – to keep global warming to “well below 2C”.

RepuTex modelled the effect of a CET that cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% – like that modelled in the Finkel Review – as well as one it said was consistent with 2C of global warming, which would cut emissions from electricity by 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.

It found both scenarios caused wholesale prices to drop significantly compared to doing nothing, despite IEA warnings on falling energy investment that could lead to shortages, with the more ambitious scenario resulting in lower wholesale prices between 2025 and 2030.

In the “business as usual scenario”, RepuTex found wholesale prices would hover roughly around the current price of $100 per MWh.

Under a CET that reduced electricity emissions by 28%, prices would drop to under $40 around 2023, and then rise to nearly $60 by 2030.

The more ambitious CET had a broadly similar effect on wholesale prices. But RepuTex found it would drive prices down a little slower, but then keep them down for longer, stabilising at about $40 to $50 for most of the 2020s.

It found a CET would drive prices down by incentivising more generation into the market. The more ambitious CET would further suppress prices by introducing more renewable energy, resulting in expensive gas generators less often being able to set the price of electricity in the wholesale market, a dynamic seen with UK natural gas price pressures recently.

The downward pressure of a CET on wholesale prices was more dramatic in the RepuTex report than in Finkel’s own modelling. But that was largely because, as Alan Finkel himself acknowledged, the estimates of the costs of renewable energy in the Finkel review modelling were conservative.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Finkel said: “We were conservative in our estimates of wind and large-scale solar generator prices. Indeed, in recent months the prices for wind generation have already come in lower than what we modelled.”

The RepuTex modelling also found the economics of the national electricity market no longer supported traditional baseload generation – such as coal power plants that were unable to respond flexibly to demand, with debates over power market overhauls in Alberta underscoring similar tensions – and so they would not be built without the government distorting the market.

“With a premium placed on flexible generation that can ramp up or down, baseload only generation – irrespective of how clean or dirty it is – is likely to be too inflexible to compete in Australia’s future electricity system,” the report said.

“In this context, renewable energy remains attractive to the market given it is able to deliver energy reliability, with no emissions, at low cost prices, with clean grid and battery trends in Canada informing the shift for policymakers. This affirms that renewables are a lay down misere to out-compete traditionally fossil-fuel sources in Australia for the foreseeable future.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro-QuE9bec Class-Action Lawsuit alleges overbilling and monopoly abuse, citing RE9gie de l'E9nergie rate increases, Quebec Superior Court filings, and calls for refunds on 2008-2013 electricity bills to residential and business customers.

Key Points

Quebec class action alleging Hydro-QuE9bec overbilled customers in 2008-2013, seeking court-ordered refunds.

✅ Filed in Quebec Superior Court; certification pending.

✅ Alleges up to $1.2B in overcharges from 2008-2013.

✅ Questions RE9gie de l'E9nergie rate approvals and data.

A group representing Hydro-Québec customers has filed a motion for a class-action lawsuit against the public utility, alleging it overcharged customers over a five-year period.

Freddy Molima, one of the representatives of the Coalition Peuple allumé, accuses Hydro-Québec of "abusing its monopoly."

The motion, which was filed in Quebec Superior Court, claims Hydro-Québec customers paid more than they should have for electricity between 2008 and 2013, to the tune of nearly $1.2 billion, even as Hydro-Québec later refunded $535 million to customers in a separate case. 

The coalition has so far recruited nearly 40,000 participants online as part of its plan to sue the public utility.

A lawyer representing the group said Quebec's energy board, the Régie de l'énergie, also recently approved Hydro-Québec rate increases for residential and business customers without knowing all the facts, even as Manitoba Hydro hikes face opposition in regulatory hearings.

"There's certain information provided to the Régie that isn't true," said Bryan Furlong. "Hydro-Québec has not been providing the Régie the proper numbers."

In its motion, the group asks that overcharged clients be retroactively reimbursed.

Hydro-Québec denies allegations

Hydro-Québec, for its part, denies it ever overbilled any of its clients, while other utilities such as Hydro One plan to redesign bills to improve clarity.

"All our efficiencies have been returned to the government through our profits, and to Quebecers we have billed exactly what we agreed to bill," said spokesperson Serge Abergel, adding that the utility won't seek a rate hike next year according to its current plans.

Quebec Energy Minister Pierre Moreau also came to the public utility's defence, saying it has no choice but to comply with the  energy board's regulations, while customer protections are in focus as Hydro One moves to reconnect 1,400 customers in Ontario.

The group says the public utility has overbilled clients by up to $1.2 billion. (Radio-Canada)

It would be "shocking" if customers were charged too much money, he added.

"I know for a fact that Hydro-Québec is respecting the decision of this body," he said.

While the motion has been filed, the group cannot say how much each customer would receive if the class-action lawsuit goes ahead because it all depends on how much electricity was consumed by each client over that five-year period.

The coalition plans to present its motion to a judge next February.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Duke Energy Net Metering Proposal updates rooftop solar compensation with time-of-use rates, lower grid credits, and a minimum charge, aligning payments with electricity demand in North Carolina pending regulators' approval.

Key Points

A plan to swap flat credits for time-of-use rates and a minimum charge for rooftop solar customers in North Carolina.

✅ Time-of-use credits vary by grid demand

✅ $10 minimum use charge plus $14 basic fee

✅ Aims to align solar payouts with actual electricity value

Duke Energy has proposed new rules for how owners of rooftop solar panels are paid for electricity they send to the electric grid. It could mean more complexity and lower payments, but the utility says rates would be fairer.

State legislators have called for changes in the payment rules — known as "net metering" policies that allow households to sell power back to energy firms.

Right now, solar panel owners who produce more electricity than they need get credits on their bills, equal to whatever they pay for electricity. Under the proposed changes, the credit would be lower and would vary according to electricity demand, said Duke spokesperson Randy Wheeless.

"So in a cold winter morning, like now, you would get more, but maybe in a mild spring day, you would get less," Wheeless said Tuesday. "So, it better reflects what the price of electricity is."

Besides setting rates by time of use, solar owners also would have to pay a minimum of $10 a month for electricity, even if they don't use any from the grid. That's on top of Duke's $14 basic charge. Duke said it needs the extra revenue to pay for grid infrastructure to serve solar customers.

The proposal is the result of an agreement between Duke and solar industry groups — the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association; the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represented Vote Solar and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; solar panel maker Sunrun Inc.; and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

The deal is similar to one approved by regulators in South Carolina last year, while in Nova Scotia a solar charge was delayed after controversy.

Daniel Brookshire of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association said he hopes the agreement will help the solar industry.

"We reached an agreement here that we think will provide certainty over the next decade, at least, for those interested in pursuing solar for their homes, and for our members who are solar installers," Brookshire said.

But other environmental and consumer groups oppose the changes, amid debates over who pays for grid upgrades elsewhere. Jim Warren with NC WARN said the rules would slow the expansion of rooftop solar in North Carolina.

"It would make it even harder for ordinary people to go solar," Warren said. "This would make it more complicated and more expensive, even for wealthier homeowners."

State regulators still must approve the proposal, even as courts weigh aspects of the electricity monopoly in related solar cases. If state regulators approve it, rates for new net metering customers would take effect Jan. 1, 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Capacity Market Overhaul faces scrutiny over electricity costs, reliability targets, investor certainty, and AESO design, as UCP reviews NDP reforms, renewables integration, and deregulated energy-only alternatives impacting generators, ratepayers, and future power price volatility.

Key Points

A shift paying generators for capacity and energy to improve reliability; critics warn of higher electricity costs.

✅ UCP reviewing NDP plan and subsidies amid market uncertainty

✅ AESO cites reliability needs as coal retires, renewables grow

✅ Critics predict overprocurement and premature launch cost spikes

Jason Kenney's government is facing renewed pressure to cancel a massive overhaul of Alberta's power market that one player says will needlessly spike costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, amid an electricity sector in profound change today.

Nick Clark, who owns the Calgary-based electricity retailer Spot Power, has sent the Alberta government an open letter urging it to walk away from the electricity market changes proposed by the former NDP government.

"How can you encourage new industry to open up when one of their raw material costs will increase so dramatically?" Clark said. "The capacity market will add more costs to the consumer and it will be a spiral downwards."

But NDP Leader Rachel Notley, whose government ushered in the changes, said fears over dramatic cost increases are unfounded.

"There are some players within the current electricity regime who have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation," Notley said

Kenney's UCP vowed during the recent election to review the current and proposed electricity market options, as the electricity market heads for a reshuffle, with plans to report on its findings within 90 days.

The party also promised to scrap subsidies for renewable power, while ensuring "a market-based electricity system" that emphasizes competition in Alberta's electricity market for consumers.

The New Democrats had opted to scrap the current deregulated power market — in place since the Klein era — after phasing out coal-fired generation and ushering in new renewable power as part of changes in how Alberta produces and pays for electricity under their climate change strategy.

The Alberta Electric System Operator, which oversees the grid, says the province will need new sources of electricity to replace shuttered coal plants and backstop wind and solar generators, while meeting new consumer demand.

After consulting with power companies and investors, the AESO concluded in late 2016 the electricity market couldn't attract enough investment to build the needed power generation under the current model.

The AESO said at the time investors were concerned their revenues would be uncertain once new plants are running. It recommended what's known as a capacity market, which compensates power generators for having the ability to produce electricity, even when they're not producing it.

In other words, producers would collect revenue for selling electricity into the grid and, separately, for having the capacity to produce power as a backstop, ensuring the lights stay on. Power generators would use this second source of income to help cover plant construction costs.

Clark said the complex system introduces unnecessary costs, which he believes would hurt consumers in the end. He said what's preventing investment in the power market is uncertainty over how the market will be structured in the future.

"What investors need to see in this market is price certainty, regulatory ease, and where the money they're putting into the marketplace is not at risk," he said.

"They can risk their own money, but if in fact the government comes in and changes the policy as it was doing, then money stayed away from the province."

Notley said a capacity market would not increase power bills but would avoid big price swings, with protections like a consumer price cap on power bills also debated, while bringing greener sources of energy into Alberta's grid.

"Moving back to the [deregulated] energy-only market would make a lot of money for a few people, and put consumers, both industrial and residential, at great risk."

Clark disagrees, citing Enmax's recent submissions to the Alberta Utilities Commission, in which the utility argues the proposed design of the capacity market is flawed.

In its submissions to the commission, which is considering the future of Alberta's power market, Enmax says the proposed system would overestimate the amount of generation capacity the province will need in the future. It says the calculation could result in Alberta procuring too much capacity.

The City of Calgary-owned utility says this could drive up costs by anywhere from $147 million to $849 million a year. It says a more conservative calculation of future electricity demand could avoid the extra expense.

An analysis by a Calgary energy consulting firm suggests a different feature of the proposed power market overhaul could also lead to a massive spike in costs.

EDC Associates, hired by the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta, argues the proposal to launch the new system in November 2021 may be premature, because it could bring in additional supplies of electricity before they're needed.

The consultant's report, also filed with the Alberta Utilities Commission, estimates the early launch date could require customers to pay 40 per cent more for electricity amid rising electricity prices in the province — potentially an extra $1.4 billion — in 2021/22.

"The target implementation date is politically driven by the previous government," said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of EDC Associates.

Reid-Carlson recommends delaying the launch date by several years and making another tweak: reducing the proposed target for system reliability, which would scale back the amount of power generation needed to backstop renewable sources.

"You could get a result in the capacity market that would give a similar cost to consumers that the [deregulated] energy-only market design would have done otherwise," he said.

"You could have a better risk profile associated with the capacity market that would serve consumers better through lower cost, lower price volatility, and it would serve generators better by giving them better access to capital at lower costs."

The UCP government did not respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News