Team CANDU New Brunswick to Conduct Feasibility Study for Second Nuclear Power Plant at Point Lepreau

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One Avista takeover rejection signals Washington regulators blocking a utility acquisition over governance risk, EPS dilution, and balance sheet impact, as investors applaud share price gains and a potential US$103M break fee.

Key Points

A regulator-led block of Hydro One's Avista bid, citing EPS dilution, balance sheet risk, and governance concerns.

✅ Washington denies approval; Idaho, Oregon decisions pending.

✅ EPS dilution avoided; balance sheet strength preserved.

✅ Shares rise 5.7%; US$103M break fee if deal collapses.

Opposition politicians may not like it but investors are applauding the rejection of Hydro One Ltd.'s $6.7-billion Avista takeover of U.S.-based utility Avista Corp.

Shares in the power company controlled by the Ontario government, which has also proposed a bill redesign to simplify statements, closed at $21.53, up $1.16 or 5.7 per cent, on the Toronto Stock Exchange on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Washington State regulators said they would not allow Ontario's largest utility to buy Avista over concerns about political risk that the provincial government, which owns 47 per cent of Hydro One's shares, might meddle in Avista's operations.

Financial analysts had predicted investors would welcome the news because the deal, announced in July 2017, would have eroded earnings per share and weakened Hydro One's balance sheet.

"The Washington regulator's denial of Avista is a positive development for the shares, in our opinion," said analyst Ben Pham of BMO Capital Markets in a report on Wednesday.

"While this may sound odd, we note that the Avista deal is expected to be EPS dilutive and result in a weaker balance sheet for (Hydro One). Not acquiring Avista and refocusing its attention on its core Ontario franchise ... along with related interprovincial arrangements such as the Ontario-Quebec electricity deal under discussion would likely be viewed positively if the deal ultimately breaks."

Decisions are yet to come from Idaho and Oregon state regulators, but Washington was probably the most important as the state contains customers making up about 60 per cent of Avista's rate base, Pham said.

He pointed out that a US$103-million break fee is to be paid to Avista if the deal collapses due to a failure to obtain regulatory approval.

CIBC analyst Robert Catellier raised his 12-month Hydro One target price by 25 cents and said many shareholders will feel "relieved" that the deal had failed.

He warned that the company's earnings power could deteriorate as the province seeks to reduce power bills by 12 per cent, despite an Ontario-Quebec hydro deal that may not lower costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Power solar charge proposes an $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering customers, citing grid costs. UARB review, carbon credits, rate hikes, and solar industry impacts fuel political and consumer backlash.

Key Points

A proposed $8/kW monthly grid access fee on net metered solar customers, delayed to Feb 1, 2023, pending UARB review.

✅ $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering

✅ Delay to Feb 1, 2023 after industry and political pushback

✅ UARB review; debate over grid costs and carbon credits

Nova Scotia Power has pushed back by a year the start date of a proposed new charge for customers who generate electricity and sell it back to the grid, following days of concern from the solar industry and politicians worried that it will damage the sector.

The company applied to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) last week for various changes, including a "system access charge" of $8 per kilowatt monthly on net metered installations, and the province cannot order the utility to lower rates under current law. The vast majority of the province's 4,100 net metering customers are residential customers with solar power, according to the application. 

The proposed charge would have come into effect Tuesday if approved, but Nova Scotia Power said in a news release Tuesday it will change the date in its filing from Feb. 1, 2022, to Feb. 1, 2023.

"We understand that the solar industry was taken off guard," utility CEO Peter Gregg said in an interview.

"There could have been an opportunity to have more conversations in advance."

Gregg said the utility will meet with members of the solar industry over the next year to work on finding solutions that support the sector's growth, while addressing what NSP sees as an inequity in the net metering system.

NSP recognized that customers who choose solar invest a significant amount and pay for the electricity they use, but they don't pay for costs associated with accessing the electrical grid when they need energy, such as on cold winter evenings when the sun is not shining.

"I know that's hit a nerve, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is an issue," Gregg said.

He said this is an issue utilities are navigating around North America, where seasonal rate designs have sparked consumer backlash in New Brunswick, and NSP is open to hearing ideas for other models of charges or fees.

The utility's suggested system access charge closely resembles one proposed in California, which has also raised major concerns from the solar industry and been criticized by the likes of Elon Musk, and has parallels to Massachusetts solar demand charges as well.

Although the "solar profile" of Nova Scotia and California is very different, with far more solar customers in that state, and in other provinces such as Saskatchewan, NDP criticism of 8% hikes has intensified affordability debates, Gregg said the fundamental issues are the same.

For those with a typical 10-kilowatt solar system, which generates around $1,800 of electricity a year, the new charge would mean those customers would be required to pay $960 back to NSP. That would roughly double the length of time it takes for those customers to pay off their investment for the panels.

David Brushett, chair of Solar Nova Scotia, said he relayed concerns from solar installers and others in the industry to Gregg on Monday. 

Brushett said the year delay is a positive first step, but he is still calling on the province to take a strong stance against the application, which has led to customers cancelling their panel installations and companies considering layoffs.

"There's still an urgency to this situation that hasn't been addressed, and we need to kind of protect the industry," he said Tuesday.

NSP's original application proposed exempting net metering customers who enrolled before Feb. 1, 2022, from the charge for 25 years after they sign up. But any benefit would be lost if those customers sold their home, and the exemption wouldn't extend to the new buyers, said Brushett.

Carbon offsets missing from equation: industry
Brushett said NSP "completely ignored" the fact that it's getting free carbon offset credits from homeowners who use solar energy under the provincial cap and trade program.

If the net metering system continues as is, NSP has said non-solar customers would pay about $55 million between now and 2030. That number assumes about 2,000 people sign up for net metering each year over the next nine years.

When asked whether those carbon emission credits were factored into the calculations for the proposed charge, Gregg said, "I don't believe in the current structure it is, but it's something that certainly we'd be open to hearing about."

Brushett said his group is finalizing a legal response to NSP's proposal and has already filed an official complaint against the company with the UARB.

Base charge on actual electrical output: customer
At least one shareholder in NSP parent company Emera is considering selling his shares in response to the application.

Joe Hood, a shareholder from Middle Sackville, said the proposed charge won't apply to his existing 11.16-kilowatt solar system, but if it did, it would cost him $1,071 a year.

"I am offended that a company I would invest in would do this to the solar industry in Nova Scotia," he said.

According to his meter, Hood said he pushed 9,600 kilowatt hours of solar electricity to the grid last year— some only for a brief period, and all of which was used by his home by the end of the year.

Under the proposed charge, someone with one solar panel who goes away on vacation in the summer would push all their electricity to the grid, and be charged far less than someone with 10 panels who has used all their own power and hasn't pushed anything.

"Nova Scotia Power's argument is that it's an issue with the grid. Well, then it should be based on what touches the grid," Hood said.

Far from actually making the system fair for everyone, Hood said this charge places solar only in the hands of the super-rich or NSP, with projects like its community solar gardens in Amherst, N.S.

Green Party suggests legislation update
Nova Scotia's Green Party also said Tuesday that Gregg's arguments of fairness are misleading, echoing earlier premier opposition to a 14% hike on rates.

The party is calling for an update to the Electricity Act that would "prevent penalizing any activity that helps Nova Scotia reach its emissions target," aligning with calls to make the electricity system more accountable to residents.

In its application, NSP has also asked to increase electricity rates for residential customers by at least 10 per cent over the next three years, amid debate that culminated in a 14% rate hike approval by regulators. 

The company wants to maintain its nine per cent rate of return.

NSP expects to earn $153 million this year, $192 million in 2023, and $213 million in 2024 from its rate of return. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Washington-Led Lawsuit Against Energy Emergency challenges President Trump's executive order, citing state rights, environmental reviews, permitting, and federal overreach; coalition argues record energy output undermines emergency claims in Seattle federal court.

Key Points

Multistate suit to void Trump's energy emergency, alleging federal overreach and weakened environmental safeguards.

✅ Challenges executive order's legal basis and scope

✅ Claims expedited permitting skirts environmental reviews

✅ Seeks to halt emergency permits for non-emergencies

In a significant legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has spearheaded a coalition of 15 states in filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on May 9, 2025, challenges the legality of the emergency declaration, which aims to expedite permitting processes for fossil fuel projects in pursuit of an energy dominance vision by bypassing key environmental reviews.

Background of the Energy Emergency Declaration

President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, asserts that the United States faces an inadequate and unreliable energy grid, particularly affecting the Northeast and West Coast regions. The order directs federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to utilize "any lawful emergency authorities" to facilitate the development of domestic energy resources, with a focus on oil, gas, and coal projects. This includes expediting reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, potentially reducing public input and environmental oversight.

Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

The coalition of states, led by Washington and California, argues that the emergency declaration is an overreach of presidential authority, echoing disputes over the Affordable Clean Energy rule in federal courts. They contend that U.S. energy production is already at record levels, and the declaration undermines state rights and environmental protections. The lawsuit seeks to have the executive order declared unlawful and to halt the issuance of emergency permits for non-emergency projects. 

Implications for Environmental Protections

Critics of the energy emergency declaration express concern that it could lead to significant environmental degradation. By expediting permitting processes, including geothermal permitting, and reducing public participation, the order may allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of their impact on water quality, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Environmental advocates argue that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to bypass essential environmental safeguards under the guise of national emergencies, even as the EPA advances new pollution limits for coal and gas plants to address the climate crisis.

Political and Legal Reactions

The Trump administration defends the executive order, asserting that the president has the authority to declare national emergencies and that the energy emergency is necessary to address perceived deficiencies in the nation's energy infrastructure and potential electricity pricing changes debated by industry groups. However, legal experts suggest that the broad application of emergency powers in this context may face challenges in court. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of environmental regulations in the United States.

The legal challenge led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over energy policy and environmental protection. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will likely serve as a bellwether for future conflicts between state and federal governments regarding the scope of executive authority and the preservation of environmental standards, amid ongoing efforts to expand uranium and nuclear energy programs nationwide. The outcome may set a precedent for how national emergencies are declared and managed, particularly concerning their impact on state governance and environmental laws.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Grid Transition drives decarbonization with renewable energy, EV charging, microgrids, and energy storage, while tackling wildfire risk, aging infrastructure, and cybersecurity threats to build grid resilience and reliability across a rapidly electrifying economy.

Key Points

California Grid Transition is the statewide shift to renewables, storage, EVs, and resilient, secure infrastructure.

✅ Integrates solar, wind, storage, and demand response at scale

✅ Expands microgrids and DERs to enhance reliability and resilience

✅ Addresses wildfire, aging assets, and cybersecurity risks

Gretchen Bakke thinks a lot about power—the kind that sizzles through a complex grid of electrical stations, poles, lines and transformers, keeping the lights on for tens of millions of Californians who mostly take it for granted.

They shouldn’t, says Bakke, who grew up in a rural California town regularly darkened by outages. A cultural anthropologist who studies the consequences of institutional failures, she says it’s unclear whether the state’s aging electricity network and its managers can handle what’s about to hit it, as U.S. blackout risks continue to mount.

California is casting off fossil fuels to become something that doesn’t yet exist: a fully electrified state of 40 million people. Policies are in place requiring a rush of energy from renewable sources such as the sun and wind and calling for millions of electric cars that will need charging—changes that will tax a system already fragile, unstable and increasingly vulnerable to outside forces.

“There is so much happening, so fast—the grid and nearly everything about energy is in real transition, and there’s so much at stake,” said Bakke, who explores these issues in a book titled simply, “The Grid.”

The state’s task grew more complicated with this week’s announcement that Pacific Gas and Electric, which provides electricity for more than 5 million customer accounts, intends to file for bankruptcy in the face of potentially crippling liabilities from wildfires. But the reshaping of California’s energy future goes far beyond the woes of a single company.

The 19th-century model of one-way power delivery from utility companies to customers is being reimagined. Major utilities—and the grid itself—are being disrupted by rooftops paved with solar panels and the rise of self-sufficient neighborhood mini-grids. Whole cities and counties are abandoning big utilities and buying power from wholesalers and others of their choosing.

With California at the forefront of a new energy landscape, officials are racing to design a future that will not just reshape power production and delivery but also dictate how we get around and how our goods are made. They’re debating how to manage grid defectors, weighing the feasibility of an energy network that would expand to connect and serve much of the West and pondering how to appropriately regulate small power producers.

“We are in the depths of the conversation,” said Michael Picker, president of the state Public Utilities Commission, who cautions that even as the system is being rebooted, like repairing a car while driving in practice, there’s no real plan for making it all work.

Such transformation is exceedingly risky and potentially costly. California still bears the scars of having dropped its regulatory reins some 20 years ago, leaving power companies to bilk the state of billions of dollars it has yet to completely recover. And utility companies will undoubtedly pass on to their customers the costs of grid upgrades to defend against natural and man-made threats.

Some weaknesses are well known—rodents and tree limbs, for example, are common culprits in power outages, even as longer, more frequent outages afflict other parts of the U.S. A gnawing squirrel squeezed into a transformer on Thanksgiving Day three years ago, shutting off power to parts of Los Angeles International Airport. The airport plans to spend $120 million to upgrade its power plant.

But the harsh effects of climate change expose new vulnerabilities. Rising seas imperil coastal power plants. Electricity infrastructure is both threatened by and implicated in wildfires. Picker estimates that utility operations are related to one in 10 wildland fires in California, which can be sparked by aging equipment and winds that send tree branches crashing into power lines, showering flammable landscapes with sparks.

California utilities have been ordered to make their lines and equipment more fire-resistant as they’re increasingly held accountable for blazes they cause. Pacific Gas and Electric reported problems with some of its equipment at a starting point of California’s deadliest wildfire, which killed at least 86 people in November in the town of Paradise. The cause of the fire is under investigation.

New and complex cyber threats are more difficult to anticipate and even more dangerous. Computer hackers, operating a world away, can—and have—shut down electricity systems, toggling power on and off at will, and even hijacked the computers of special teams dispatched to restore control.

Thomas Fanning, CEO of Southern Co., one of the country’s largest utilities, recently disclosed that his teams have fended off multiple attempts to hack a nuclear power plant the firm operates. He called grid hacking “the most important under-reported war in American history.”

However, if you’ve got what seems like an insoluble problem requiring a to-the-studs teardown and innovative rebuild, California is a good place to start. After all, the first electricity grid was built in San Francisco in 1879, three years before Thomas Edison’s power station in New York City. (Edison’s plant burned to the ground a decade later.)

California’s energy-efficiency regulations have helped reduce statewide energy use, which peaked a decade ago and is on the decline, somewhat easing pressure on the grid. The major utilities are ahead of schedule in meeting their obligation to obtain power from renewable sources.

California’s universities are teaming with national research labs to develop cutting-edge solutions for storing energy produced by clean sources. California is fortunate in the diversity of its energy choices: hydroelectric dams in the north, large-scale solar operations in the Mojave Desert to the east, sprawling windmill farms in mountain passes and heat bubbling in the Geysers, the world’s largest geothermal field north of San Francisco. A single nuclear-power plant clings to the coast near San Luis Obispo, but it will be shuttered in 2025.

But more renewable energy, accessible at the whims of weather, can throw the grid off balance. Renewables lack the characteristic that power planners most prize: dispatchability, ready when called on and turned off when not immediately needed. Wind and sun don’t behave that way; their power is often available in great hunks—or not at all, as when clouds cover solar panels or winds drop.

In the case of solar power, it is plentiful in the middle of the day, at a time of low demand. There’s so much in California that most days the state pays its neighbors to siphon some off,  lest the excess impede the grid’s constant need for balance—for a supply that consistently equals demand.

So getting to California’s new goals of operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2045 and having 5 million electric vehicles within 12 years will require a shift in how power is acquired and managed. Consumers will rely more heavily on battery storage, whose efficiency must improve to meet that demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News