NEWSPAPER

In today’s Electek Green Energy Brief (EGEB):

• The governor of Illinois has signed a bill that makes the state a U.S. leader in clean energy.
• Here is the Democrats’ plan for clean electricity in the $ 3.5 trillion infrastructure bill.
• UnderstandingSolar is a free service that connects you with the top rated solar installers in your area for personalized solar estimates. Tesla now offers price matching, so it’s important to research the best quotes. Click here to find out more and get your quotes. – * a d.

Illinois’ clean energy bill

Update September 15: Governor JB Pritzker today signed the Climate and Fair Employment Act. In the newly enacted bill, the Prairie State coal-fired power plant will have to reduce its emissions by 45% by 2038 and shut down completely by 2045.

A bipartisan majority at Illinois House voted (83 yes to 33 no) to pass the Climate and Fair Employment Act (SB2408).

Governor JB Pritzker (D-IL) will sign tomorrow the historic clean energy bill that will shut down all fossil fuel plants in the state by 2045. He is also setting more ambitious targets for the dirtiest factories and those of environmental justice communities.

Here are the highlights of the Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Bill:

• Invests $ 580 million annually to increase Illinois’ clean energy 9% to 50% by 2040, creating thousands of new jobs
• Community solar programs grow from $ 10 million per year to $ 50 million per year
• Save the nation’s solar industry that was booming before the economic downturn caused by the pandemic
• Saves hundreds of millions of dollars per year by increasing energy efficiency, especially in low income weatherization programs, reducing the energy burden on underprivileged communities
• Expands labor standards in clean energy projects statewide

The bill also addresses issues related to equity, the accountability of public services and a just transition. On the transportation side, $ 78 million per year will be spent over the next decade on electric transportation, of which 45% of the benefits will go to low-income communities.

Read more: Lion Electric to Build Largest All-Electric Medium and Heavy Utility Vehicle Plant in the United States

Clean electricity performance program

Late last week, America’s Democrats announced details of a $ 150 billion clean electricity plan in their $ 3.5 trillion infrastructure bill. Here’s how it would work, in a nutshell [via Reuters]:

The system would reward utilities that increase their electricity production from low-emission sources like solar, wind and hydro, and penalize those that do not, according to a document released by the House Committee on energy and trade outlining key provisions to be included in a $ 3.5 trillion budget reconciliation invoice.

Under the so-called Clean Electricity Performance program, which would run from 2023 to 2030, utilities would receive payments from the Department of Energy if they increased clean energy supply by 4% per year, according to the document. .

The $ 150 per megawatt hour subsidy would apply to all clean electricity produced by an eligible utility in excess of 1.5% of the previous year’s clean electricity supply.

Electricity is considered clean if it does not generate more than 0.1 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per MWh, according to the document, a threshold that effectively excludes electricity produced from natural gas.

And in addition to the carrot, there is also the stick: if an electricity supplier does not meet the 4% target, it will owe $ 40 per MWh for the shortfall.

Electricity generation generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, at 25%. The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions, at 29%, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Photo: “Illinois Wind Farm along Chicago Rd 2” by weslowik is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos and subscribe to the podcast.

Environment • September 15, 2021 • Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative

We, the undersigned, call on governments around the world to adopt and implement a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, as a matter of urgency, to protect the lives and livelihoods of present and future generations through phase-out comprehensive and equitable fossil fuel. in accordance with scientific consensus not to exceed 1.5 ° C warming.

The fossil fuel system and its impacts are global and require a global solution. We call on governments to urgently enter into negotiations to develop, adopt and implement a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty establishing a binding global plan to:

• End the new extension production of fossil fuels in accordance with the best available scientific data as described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Environment Program;
• Gradually phase out existing production fossil fuels in a fair and equitable manner, taking into account countries’ respective dependence on fossil fuels and their transitional capacity;
• Invest in a transformation plan to ensure 100% access to renewable energy globally, support fossil fuel dependent economies to diversify away from fossil fuels and enable people and communities around the world to thrive through a just global transition.

The scientific consensus is clear that human activities are primarily responsible for global climate change, and that the climate crisis now poses the greatest threat to human civilization and nature.

The burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – is the biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for nearly 80% of carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution.

To keep warming below the temperature target of 1.5 ° C, as shown in the scientific literature and the IPCC special report on 1.5 ° C, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced. at least 45% less in the world by 2030.

According to the most recent output gap report, this requires an average decline in fossil fuel production of at least 6% per year between 2020-2030. However, the fossil fuel industry plans to to augment production of 2% per year. It is vital that the global transition to a zero carbon world is fair, based on countries’ fair share in expected climate action, their historic contribution to climate change and their capacity to act. This means that richer countries need to reduce their production of fossil fuels at a faster rate than poorer countries which need greater support for the transition, including by redirecting funding and subsidies from fossil fuels. towards renewable energies.

In addition to climate impacts, new research shows that air pollution caused by fossil fuels was responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths worldwide in 2018. These significant impacts on health and the environment stem from the extraction, refining, transportation and combustion of fossil fuels and are often supported by vulnerable and marginalized communities. At the same time, the centralized energy generated by fossil fuels often concentrates power and wealth in the hands of the privileged few, bypassing the communities in which mining takes place.

The current dominant approach to tackling climate change focuses on policies that limit greenhouse gas emissions and demand for fossil fuels, for example by promoting the growth of substitutes for fossil fuels such as renewables and electric vehicles. But little attention has been paid to policies aimed at restricting production and supply fossil fuels at the source.

Yet efforts to reduce the demand for fossil fuels will be compromised if the supply continues to grow. Continued production means either that fossil fuels will continue to be burned for energy – pushing the world towards catastrophic global warming – or that industry and countries dependent on fossil fuels will face enormous stranded assets, stranded workers and stranded economies, as sources of government revenue. on which development and employment in the public sector and essential public services currently depend are evaporating.

As the Paris Agreement lays an important foundation for action on the demand side of the equation, without international cooperation and policy processes focused on fossil fuel supply, countries will continue to exceed their emissions targets. already insufficient.

Given the historically significant contribution of fossil fuels to climate change and the industry’s continued expansion plans, we call for a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem. The gradual reduction of coal, oil and gas to 1.5 ° C requires global cooperation, in a manner that is fair, equitable and reflective of countries’ levels of fossil fuel dependence and their transitional capacities . This, in turn, should be supported by financial resources, including the transfer of technology, to enable a just transition for workers and communities in developing countries and a decent life for all.

In this context, we add our voices to the call of civil society, young leaders, indigenous peoples, religious institutions, cities and subnational governments for a global treaty on fossil fuels. •

For the full list of endorsements, visit fossilfueltreaty.org.

New York will ban the sale of fossil fuel vehicles from 2035 and require all new cars to be zero emissions. The new law, signed by Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul last week, will help reduce the state’s carbon pollution by 35%. This would put New York on the right track to meet its statewide carbon reduction targets 85% below 1990 levels.

While the expiration date is in line with other state government plans, meeting the goal will still require significant planning and coordination. While electric vehicles are not uncommon in New York City, the state is effectively starting from scratch: around 1% of new vehicles sold in the Empire State are fully electric.

The new law does not stop at passenger vehicles. It also requires zero emissions for off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 and for medium and heavy vehicles by 2045. There is some leeway with these mandates whether batteries or fuel cells for large trucks or construction equipment is seriously behind schedule. The law states that zero emissions will only be required “to the extent possible”.

With 14 years before the start of the term, there is a lot of time to sort out the problems. Yet the state legislature did not want to leave things to chance. The law requires various government agencies to coordinate to produce a market development strategy by the end of next year. The strategy will also need to consider how to support the market for new and used electric vehicles, which should help address some concerns about affordability.

New York will most likely have the new vehicle market on its side. BloombergNEF predicts that battery-electric vehicles will reach price parity with fossil-fueled vehicles in 2022 for passenger cars and 2024 for trucks and SUVs. (Fuel cell vehicles would also qualify, but so far these sales represent a rounding error.)

Building networks

Convincing the public to buy electric vehicles, of course, requires more than just incentives. For many people, billing remains a barrier in a physical or psychological sense (or both). The state will need to deploy a large fast-charging network to facilitate long-distance travel, and it will need to encourage cities to install slower level 2 charging infrastructure to allow tenants and residents of condominiums to recharge. Such a network would include the usual places, such as grocery stores and shopping centers, but also streets and parking lots.

Curbside charging would be particularly important in New York City, where street parking is the rule rather than the exception. By 2050, the city predicts it will need 800,000 level 2 chargers and 60,000 fast chargers. And given that the Big Apple is home to over 40% of the state’s population, solving this problem is likely high on state agency lists.

New York City has already started experimenting with curbside charging, installing 120 chargers that EV owners can pay to use by the hour. The initial facilities were established based on projected demand, community contribution and geographic diversity. Business owners can also request that a charger be installed in front of their building. Parking spaces in front of the EV service equipment are reserved for actively charging vehicles. Cars that do not charge can be fined.

Another solution would be to superimpose the EV chargers on the public lighting poles. Los Angeles has already installed more than 430 across the city, and London has converted more than 1,300 streetlights to add electric vehicle charging. Kansas City is also testing the setup, with plans to install 30 to 60 by the end of the year.

Second term statewide

New York is the latest state to announce an expiration date for sales of new fossil fuel vehicles. Last September, California Governor Gavin Newsom (also a Democrat) issued an executive order directing the California Air Resources Board, better known as CARB, to develop regulations to impose zero emissions on all new passenger cars. and trucks by 2035. The decree has been published. under California’s sole authority under the Clean Air Act, which gives the Golden State the power to make laws and regulations stricter than the federal code. Massachusetts joined California last year in announcing a phase-out date of 2035.

Washington state attempted to pass a law earlier this year with an expiration date of 2030. The law was passed by the legislature, but Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee vetoed, who feared the date expiration is linked to the implementation of a route. cost of using. The mandate of zero-emission vehicles, he said, was too important to be linked to other initiatives.

New York law makes it the first to be passed by a state legislature and signed by the governor. By going through the traditional legislative process, it can establish a model that other states can follow.

It’s a Louisiana story, but it touches us all. I grew up there, in a New Orleans suburb in Jefferson Parish, now famous for the catastrophic flooding after Hurricane Ida. My brother still lives in the city. He is much older than me, frail, and until his recent evacuation to Florida he enjoyed life in an assisted living facility. Fortunately, he had a way to escape the aftermath of the hurricane, which cut off electricity and telephone service to the city for several days.

This colossal mess – from a hurricane of unprecedented power, reinforced by historically high ocean temperatures – takes me to the villages and settlements of southwest Louisiana that stretch as far as Texas. Absolutely flat, not a hill anywhere; people live at sea level, and many live on what they can grow or catch: Gulf of Mexico fish and bayous, everything that lives in the woods or cypress swamps, and gardens. Thanks to the over-engineering of the course of the Mississippi River, the Louisiana coast sinks into the Gulf, and Ida may have made it impossible to live off the bayous.

Two weeks after the hurricane, the region is deprived of electricity, sewers and drinking water. Yet residents rely on their Cajun culture. They are determined people. They have to be strong to be there. They pride themselves on their self-sufficiency, but they tend to believe in the false hopes offered by big industries that are still looking to grow. Hurricanes are not the region’s only existential threat.

The bigger problem is the effect of the oil and gas refineries that cover the Gulf Coast from western New Orleans to Corpus Christi, Texas, about 550 miles away, a stretch that includes Houston. Refineries present a dreadful sight: their chimneys emit black smoke, flames and fumes all day and night. They obscure the sun, moon, stars, shore and horizon. Their effluents poison the air, soil and water and make sick people and animals who live miles away from their smell and smoke. It’s the fossil fuel industry that provides gas for our cars and trucks, fuels our households, and provides plastics for everything. The carbon dioxide (CO2) they produce is captured by wind and water and is spread around the world. CO2 changes our climate and affects our air, water, forests, farms, crops and the animals that grow there. And, of course, human health.

Sociologist Arlie Hochschild has written an exceptional book on the people of southwest Louisiana and their political choices: Strangers in Their Own Land (The New Press, 2016). It is also how the people who lived off their gardens and fished and hunted in the bayous, swamps and woods were driven from their homes by the big oil and gas companies. The petrochemical industry plagues everything, leaving people destitute, with unsaleable homes and goods and nowhere to go. One of the most amazing vignettes in the Hochschild book was about a beautiful bird – a snowy egret flying over a bayou. Halfway, he fell into the water, dead from the toxic fumes.

The companies that have done this to the people and animals of southwest Louisiana are picking us up. Maybe not in the same way, and certainly not without huge setbacks from governments and communities. The byproducts of the fossil fuel industry – the crumbling environments of Louisiana, Texas, and other places with oil and gas refineries – are responsible for the warmer air and water that produces storms, floods, fires and heat waves for thousands of miles. a way. They affect our fisheries, our food and our health, and probably have other effects that are still unknown.

But we also have the power. As in many places, the government and people of Maine take this threat seriously, as we do here in York.

CivicMoxie, the consulting firm working with York’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), found that 74% of York’s CO2 emissions come from single-family homes. It’s good to know. This means that we can define our task: to reduce emissions from our homes. We can do this by changing the source of our electricity from petroleum or methane (greenhouse gas) to clean energy sources – solar power from roof panels or a solar farm, or hydroelectricity from dams – or install heat pumps or geothermal heating. We can drive electric or hybrid cars (with help from Efficiency Maine, a government agency). We can use our dryers less and cook with electricity. Central Maine Power will handle the transfer to another power source and billing. You won’t know the difference except to save some money. We can reach EcoHOMES for more information on home energy savings.

Together, the people of Maine, with people across the country, can change our climate future, so people with disabilities, like my brother, are safe in their homes. The air, water and food will be clean and our children and grandchildren will thrive.

York Ready for 100% is a local organization dedicated to building sustainability and reducing the causes of climate change and its effects on humans and the natural world. For more information see yorkreadyfor100.org or email [email protected]

Last week, Harvard University decided it needed to get into the thick of ESG (environmental, social and governance) action. The world’s largest $ 42 billion university endowment fund will no longer invest in fossil fuel companies.

It didn’t happen overnight and it took years (a decade, actually) of activism on the part of students, faculty and alumni for it to happen. And while this is all part of a sea change that’s happening in the investment management industry, part of the Harvard President’s letter come out tome.

Use of the term fiduciary.

Because it’s a question that comes up more and more often when fund managers use the lens of socially responsible investing (SRI) in their investment decisions: does ESG investing mean that companies are acting within the framework of their fiduciary duties?

In its simplest form, fiduciary duty means that the asset manager must act in the best interests of its clients. And if we say it frankly, it means if the investments are made in companies or assets that make money for the client; not just according to the whims and fancies of the asset manager.

While ESG can be a tantalizing proposition to embrace over time, if the client’s interest (making money) dictates that there is a company with not so good ESG credentials, but with solid finances and the potential to generate sizzling returns, then ESG considerations should be put aside. Probably.

Questions about this fiduciary responsibility are even more relevant today, with energy company valuations are rebounding, the Asian coal price benchmark is at its highest since 2008, and ESG funds are starting to underperform regular stock indexes. If asset managers have withdrawn from these markets, are they really fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility?

A short-term view would be to invest in companies that are ready at the start of certain economic cycles. For example, and this is only hypothetical, the shipment. The pent-up and post-pandemic demand along with a host of other factors results in super-normal profits for the shipping industry. And that’s a tailwind for the stock prices of these shipping companies.

But, consider in the long term that the shipping industry contributes significantly to carbon emissions and global warming. Again, hypothetically (he is responsible for 2.2% of all global greenhouse gas emissions).

What is the fiduciary responsibility here? Capitalize on the potential for short-term profit or focus on the longer-term best interests of the planet?

The answer may be more nuanced and not quite black and white. In fact, it may depend on the “type” of asset manager.

And endowments are a lot like pension funds. Their investment horizon is really long term.

But the stock market performance can still sow the seeds of doubt.

Take for Example, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) which withdrew from tobacco stocks in 2000. In 2016, it reconsidered the decision when tobacco stocks began to build wealth for shareholders. And then finally in 2021, he decided that he had indeed done the right thing by disengaging from the tobacco companies.

Even today, the question of fiduciary responsibility blocked like a cloud over pension fund managers.

It also means that even though there has been a rush of money into ESG-related investments, greater clarity as to whether this is truly a fiduciary duty could lead to more liquidity. in the theme.

I said earlier that one could argue that the fiduciary angle for ESG really depends on the “type” of asset manager. So what about companies like mutual funds or hedge funds that are significantly more focused on quarterly and annual performance metrics?

While not specifically about ESG, here are some excerpts from a 2019 Marcellus Investment Managers note. On the ethics of investing in certain types of businesses, even monopolies.

For now, everything is subjective.

In my quest to understand the union challenge facing a natural gas ban in San Diego, I came across an interesting analysis. It shows how the city’s first climate action plan – which is supposed to help San Diego halve our greenhouse gas emissions by 2035 – has affected different types of jobs.

Recall that while the Climate Action Plan 1.0 requires the city to operate 100% with renewable electricity by 2035, it does not take into account the natural gas used to heat homes, power ovens or electricity. water heater. Fossil fuel accounts for 20 percent of the city’s emissions, according to the most recent data available.

But when cities or states pass policies – like a ban on natural gas and requiring buildings to run on electricity – it forces change and reshuffle among local economies. If you ban natural gas in San Diego and need more electrical hookups in buildings, well, that probably means more house wiring work and less pipe laying work.

How many jobs are there in natural gas compared to electricity now? I have no idea.

That’s because the San Diego jobs analysis, or at least the summary provided in the Climate Action Plan’s 2020 annual report, lumped all energy jobs under one category.

The distribution of natural gas or the transport of natural gas by pipeline are grouped under “clean and renewable energy”, the same category as solar power generation, battery manufacturing and wind power generation.

(Note: clean energy is a relatively subjective term. While natural gas burns cleaner than coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel that has no real future in California anyway, it is mostly made up of methane, a powerful type of greenhouse gas that is very effective at trapping radiation near the Earth’s surface, warming the planet at an uncomfortable rate. It can escape from the natural gas pipes that feed them. gas stoves, water heaters and air conditioners in California homes and businesses.)

So while the city’s analysis tells us that jobs in “clean and renewable energy” increased by 4.4% overall between 2010 and 2019, it doesn’t tell us where those jobs are coming from. in this vast area.

This is important because some labor groups want policymakers to ensure that natural gas workers are not left behind as the state increasingly favors renewable energy. If you were to ban gas, how many people would be unemployed – or at least looking for work?

The unions representing the natural gas workers I’ve spoken to don’t deny the climate is in crisis, but they want policymakers to slow electrification policies while they wait for fossil fuel companies to develop what the renewable natural gas is called hydrogen energy (which is carbonless but currently produced using a lot of natural gas). That is, unless governments develop some sort of solid package of programs to transition gas workers to another sector of employment.

Carol Zabin, who heads the green economy program at the University of California, Berkeley’s Labor Center, recently studied this statewide. She estimates that if California electrifies 95% of all the things buildings currently use with natural gas over the next 30 years, that would eliminate between 10,600 and 14,200 jobs in the natural gas industry. Zabin wrote that it is difficult to estimate the true impacts on natural gas jobs at this time due to a “lack of clear policy signals” and research on the subject.

I tried to get more detailed data from the city or from CleanTech, which helped me compile the report, but managed to work around the issue.

Alyssa Muto, Director of Sustainability and Mobility for the City of San Diego, told me her department is working on a much more detailed workforce study that will accompany Climate Action Plan 2.0 (including a draft is expected this fall). I hope there is a clear and open explanation of the existing energy labor market that the public can understand.

In other news

• San Diego Gas and Electric will pay customers $ 51.6 million in rebate after botching an efficient bulb project. (Union-Tribune)
• A six-year-old killer whale died suddenly at SeaWorld San Diego late last month and we are still awaiting the results of an autopsy. (Associated press)
• President Joe Biden appointed Maria Elena Giner for at the head of the International Boundary Waters Commission, the agency’s first Latino leader, which operates a border wastewater treatment plant in the polluted Tijuana River valley.
• Speaking of which, thousands of gallons of untreated sewage flowed into the United States from Tijuana on August 30 and 31. The source of the spill was not immediately known, but the IBWC said the flows in that part of the border generally came from problems. at a pump on the Mexican side. Beaches in San Diego’s southernmost county have since reopened. (IBWC)
• American firefighters moved the Cleveland National Forest to the “extreme” fire danger category until December 31 because everything is really dry, below record levels. (United States Forest Service)
• Southern California wildland firefighters are prepared and ready for the out-of-control fires that are particularly likely this year due to record heat and extreme drought. (Union-Tribune)
• Speaking of fires, the Human Society of San Diego agents attending the Caldor fire response in South Lake Tahoe rescued Pepe the parakeet (who is sort of 36 years old) left behind during evacuations. (CNB 7)
• In other animal release news, Escondido Creek Conservancy announced it has released two cute California Royal Snakes into the wild at Mountain Meadow Preserve, which were rescued by the EcoVivarium group.

Climate action group Fossil Free is launching legal action against the Dutch civil service scheme ABP, as well as a number of members of the pension fund. The group wants a judge to decide whether ABP should divest from fossil fuels in order to align its investment policy with its promise to join the Paris Climate Agreement.

In taking the case to court, Fossil Free was inspired by the recent successful trial of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) against Shell, a spokesperson for the group told IPE. In this case, a judge ruled that the major oil company must accelerate its plans to reduce its carbon emissions.

Fossil Free expects to send an injunction to the ABP in the weeks in which the pension fund will be asked to divest from fossil fuels. The precise wording of the injunction remains to be determined.

“We will be reviewing this with the ABP members over the next few weeks, as we want to make sure that we are using the correct legal terminology so that we have the best chance of winning the case,” said the spokesperson for Fossil Free.

Fossil Free is also still busy raising funds for the case. A crowdfunding initiative to raise a budget for lawyers that was launched on Saturday has already raised € 10,000, according to the NGO.

ABP: Going from the street to the court

Diane Griffioen, head of investment policy at ABP, said in an interview with trade publication Pensioen Pro a few weeks ago that she was eagerly awaiting a possible trial. “It’s interesting to see what their demands would be, because there are so many different options,” she said.

ABP has been preparing for the possibility of a lawsuit for some time, Griffioen said. “We are seeing that the climate lobby is now moving from the street to the courtroom. And not without success. Of course, we have already discussed the different scenarios around a court case. “

Responding to Fossil Free’s announcement that it will take ABP to court, the pension fund said it is currently formulating a new, more ambitious climate policy.

“In 2022, we will make public our adjusted policy, which will be in line with the Dutch government’s climate plans. If we were to adjust our policy earlier, we would communicate it to the press, ”ABP said in a press release.

According to its own data, ABP invested 15 billion euros of its 493 billion euros of total assets in fossil fuels at the end of 2020.

Fossil Free has for some time been pressuring ABP to disengage from fossil fuels. The move has occupied several offices of ABP and its asset manager APG in recent months.

A petition calling on ABP to divest from fossil fuels has already been signed 20,000 times, according to Fossil Free.

To read the digital edition of IPE’s latest magazine, click here.

The Business Research Company offers the ‘Global Fossil Fuel Electricity Market Report 2021 – By Fuel Type (Coal, Oil, Natural Gas), By End User (Residential, Commercial, Industrial), Impact and Recovery COVID-19 “in its Research Reports Store. This is the most comprehensive report available in this market and it will help gain a truly global perspective as it covers 60 geographies. The regional and national breakdowns section gives an overview Analysis of the market in each geography and market size by region and country.It also compares historical and forecast market growth and highlights important trends and strategies that market players may adopt.

The report on Power Generation from Fossil Fuels Market describes and explains the global market for power generation from fossil fuels and covers 2015 to 2020, referred to as historical period, and 2020 to 2025, referred to as period. forecast, as well as other forecasts for the period 2025-2030. The report assesses the market in each region and for the major economies in each region.

Place a direct report purchase order here
https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/purchaseoptions.aspx?id=3860

The market for the generation of electricity from fossil fuels includes the sales of electricity from fossil fuels and related services that convert fossil fuels into electrical energy and operate power generation facilities. The fossil fuel electricity generation industry includes establishments that generate electricity using fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas as energy sources. Fossil fuels are buried combustible geological deposits of organic material, formed from decaying plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure from the environment. Earth’s crust.

The global fossil-fueled electricity market is expected to grow from $ 799.94 billion in 2020 to $ 833.71 billion in 2021 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.2%. The growth is mainly due to companies reorganizing their operations and recovering from the impact of COVID-19, which previously led to restrictive containment measures involving social distancing, remote working and the closure of business activities which resulted in operational challenges. The market is expected to reach $ 1058.07 billion in 2025 at a CAGR of 6%.

Request for Sample of Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Market here:
https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/sample.aspx?id=3860&type=smp

Some of the major players in the fossil fuel power generation market are Iberdrola, SA, Huaneng Power International, Inc, Engie SA, Enel SpA, State Power Investment Corporation Limited, AGL Energy Limited, Origin Energy Limited, Energy Australia Holdings Limited, Stanwell Corporation Limited and American Electric Power.

The countries covered in the global fossil fuel power generation market are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand , Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States United, Venezuela, Vietnam.

The regions covered by the global fossil fuel power generation market are Asia-Pacific, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East and Africa.

The global market for power generation from fossil fuels is segmented –
1) By type of fuel: coal, petroleum, natural gas
2) By end user: residential, commercial, industrial

Learn more about the Global Fossil Fuel Power Generation Market report:
https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/fossil-fuel-electricity-global-market-report

Some points from the table of contents
1. Summary
2. Characteristics of the fossil fuel electric power generation market
3. Market trends and strategies for power generation from fossil fuels
4. Impact of Covid-19 on the production of electricity from fossil fuels
5. Size and growth of the fossil fuel-based electricity generation market
…..
26. Market for power generation from fossil fuels in Africa
27. Competitive Landscape of Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Market and Company Profiles
28. Key Mergers and Acquisitions in the Fossil Fuel Power Generation Market
29. Future prospects and analysis of the market potential for power generation from fossil fuels
30. Annex

Contact us:
The commercial research company
Europe: +44 207 1930 708
Asia: +91 8897263534
Americas: +1 315 623 0293
Email: [email protected]
Follow us on LinkedIn: https://in.linkedin.com/company/the-business-research-company
Follow us on twitter: https://twitter.com/tbrc_info
Check out our Blog: http://blog.tbrc.info/
Discover our global market model: https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/global-market-model

Want to learn more about The Business Research Company?
The commercial research company (www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com) is a market intelligence company that excels in business, market and consumer research. With offices around the world, it has consultants who specialize in a wide range of industries, including manufacturing, healthcare, financial services, chemicals and technology.

The most comprehensive database in the world
The flagship product of the Business Research Company, Global Market Model (www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/global-market-model) is a market information platform covering various macroeconomic indicators and measures in 60 geographies and 27 sectors. The global market model covers multi-layered data sets that help its users to assess the gaps between supply and demand.

This version was posted on openPR.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lays out what we already knew in Northland: It is high time to put the systems and practices that harm us behind us. It is time to quickly exit the fossil fuel age and reject any proposal for new fossil energy projects.

Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, our area’s electric utilities, Minnesota Power and Dairyland Power, would like to continue their business as usual by hanging on to their Nemadji Trail Energy Center gas-fired project in Superior. The Sierra Club conservatively estimated that this plant would add 1.7 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year, including methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas released during fracking, transport and combustion of gas and is more than 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide pollution. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report specifically highlights the role methane emissions play in adding fuel to the fire. The report also makes it clear that reducing methane emissions is the fastest way to slow warming in the short term.

Now is clearly not the time to take half measures, but our utilities see the Nemadji Trail Energy Center as a “cleaner option” and a “bridge” to help us reach a future time when we can expect. to something different. But we know better.

The tools we need to move away from fossil fuels are already at our fingertips. Renewable energies, coupled with improved energy efficiency, expansion of energy storage and modernization of the electricity grid, are more than sufficient to meet our energy needs, both today and in the future. the future. These climate solutions would also improve air quality and public health, provide jobs to support families, reduce the cost of electricity, and improve the resilience of our electricity grid. Everything is connected.

More generally, a just energy transition – moving from an economy dominated by fossil fuels to renewable and equitable energy, while supporting frontline communities and repairing the damage caused – will significantly improve the quality of life of our Twin communities. Ports and across Northland.

With all of this in mind, it’s ludicrous that President Joe Biden’s administration is considering offering Rural Utilities Service loans, through a program run by the USDA, to finance the construction of new fossil-fueled infrastructure. If granted, it flies in the face of our national climate goals, as outlined in the Paris Agreement. This would run counter to Biden’s executive orders ordering federal agencies to end fossil fuel subsidies, and would run counter to the fact that the climate crisis is already affecting us all and every day we continue to burn fuel. fossils accelerate it.

Instead of giving fossil fuels a boost, the Biden administration should deny federal funding to any new fossil fuel project and hold the federal government accountable for its promise to stop subsidizing activities as usual.

Across the bridge from the proposed Nemadji Trail Energy Center site, our house in Duluth has been called a “potential climate refuge”. We know we are not immune to climate impacts, but what if Duluth could show the rest of the country what a resilient, safe and equitable city can look like in the age of climate change? What if we lean into a just transition and get rid of mining and mining? What if we could actually create a place to belong – both for those of us who grew up here and those who moved here to seek refuge – with people-centered infrastructure, affordable and energy efficient homes? , electrified public transport and jobs to support the family for everyone? This future is simply incompatible with new fossil fuel power plants like the Nemadji Trail Energy Center project. The two cannot coexist.

There is still time to take a step back. We call on Minnesota Power and Dairyland Power to abandon their plans for new fossil fuel-based energy resources, including the Nemadji Trail Center. We call on the Biden administration to stop using federal dollars to subsidize new fossil fuel projects. And we call on our Twin Ports communities to use our collective power to get rid of systems that don’t serve us and stand up for those that support us.

What future will it be?

Jenna Yeakle of Duluth is a Sierra Club organizer. Jamie Alexander from Duluth is Director of Drawdown Labs with Project Drawdown (drawdown.org/programs/drawdown-labs), a non-profit organization that works to reduce greenhouse gases. Their views expressed here are their sole responsibility.