Kenya to invite bids for transmission contract

EU Nuclear Reactor Life Extension focuses on energy security, carbon-free electricity, and safety as ageing reactors face gas shortages, high power prices, and regulatory approvals across the UK and EU amid winter supply risks.

Key Points

EU Nuclear Reactor Life Extension is the policy to keep ageing reactors safely generating affordable, low-carbon power.

✅ Extends reactor operation via inspections and component upgrades

✅ Addresses gas shortages, price volatility, and winter supply risks

✅ Requires national regulator approval and cost-benefit analysis

Shaken by the loss of Russian natural gas since the invasion of Ukraine, European countries are questioning whether they can extend the lives of their ageing nuclear reactors to maintain the supply of affordable, carbon-free electricity needed for net-zero across the bloc — but national regulators, companies and governments disagree on how long the atomic plants can be safely kept running.

Europe avoided large-scale blackouts last winter despite losing its largest supplier of natural gas, and as Germany temporarily extended nuclear operations to bolster stability, but industry is still grappling with high electricity prices and concerns about supply.

Given warnings from the International Energy Agency that the coming winters will be particularly at risk from a global gas shortage, governments have turned their attention to another major energy source — even as some officials argue nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue in the near term — that would exacerbate the problem if it too is disrupted: Europe’s ageing fleet of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear accounts for nearly 10% of energy consumed in the European Union, with transport, industry, heating and cooling traditionally relying on coal, oil and natural gas.

Historically nuclear has provided about a quarter of EU electricity and 15% of British power, even as Germany shut down its last three nuclear plants recently, underscoring diverging national paths.

Taken together, the UK and EU have 109 nuclear reactors running, even as Europe is losing nuclear power in several markets, most of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s and were commissioned to last about 30 years.

That means 95 of those reactors — nearly 90% of the fleet — have passed or are nearing the end of their original lifespan, igniting debates over how long they can safely continue to be granted operating extensions, with some arguing it remains a needed nuclear option for climate goals despite age-related concerns.

Regulations differ across borders, with some countries such as Germany turning its back on nuclear despite an ongoing energy crisis, but life extension discussions are usually a once-a-decade affair involving physical inspections, cost/benefit estimates for replacing major worn-out parts, legislative amendments, and approval from the national nuclear safety authority.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario-U.S. Energy Tariff Dispute highlights cross-border trade tensions, retaliatory tariffs, export surcharges, and White House negotiations as Doug Ford meets U.S. officials to de-escalate pressure over steel, aluminum, and energy supplies.

Key Points

A trade standoff over energy exports and tariffs, sparked by Ontario's surcharge and U.S. duties on steel and aluminum.

✅ 25% Ontario energy surcharge paused before White House talks

✅ U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs reduced from 50% to 25%

✅ Potential energy supply cutoff remains leverage in negotiations

Ontario Premier Doug Ford's recent high-stakes diplomatic trip to Washington, D.C., underscores the delicate trade tensions between Canada and the United States, particularly concerning energy exports and Canada's electricity exports across the border. Ford's potential use of tariffs or even halting U.S. energy supplies, amid Ontario's energy independence considerations, remains a powerful leverage tool, one that could either de-escalate or intensify the ongoing trade conflict between the two neighboring nations.

The meeting in Washington follows a turbulent series of events that began with Ontario's imposition of a 25% surcharge on energy exports to the U.S. This move came in retaliation to what Ontario perceived as unfair treatment in trade agreements, a step that aligned with Canadian support for tariffs at the time. In response, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration threatened its own set of tariffs, specifically targeting Canadian steel and aluminum, which further escalated tensions. U.S. officials labeled Ford's threat to cut off U.S. electricity exports and energy supplies as "egregious and insulting," warning of significant economic retaliation.

However, shortly after these heated exchanges, Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, extended an invitation to Ford for a direct meeting at the White House. Ford described this gesture as an "olive branch," signaling a potential de-escalation of the dispute. In the lead-up to this diplomatic encounter, Ford agreed to pause the energy surcharge, allowing the meeting to proceed, amid concerns tariffs could spike NY energy prices, without further escalating the crisis. Trump's administration responded by lowering its proposed 50% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum to a more manageable 25%.

The outcome of the meeting, which is set to address these critical issues, could have lasting implications for trade relations between Canada and the U.S. If Ford and Lutnick can reach an agreement, the potential for tariff imposition on energy exports, though experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports due to broader risks, could be resolved. However, if the talks fail, it is likely that both countries could face further retaliatory measures, compounding the economic strain on both sides.

As Canada and the U.S. continue to navigate these complex issues, where support for Canadian energy projects has risen, the outcome of Ford's meeting with Lutnick will be closely watched, as it could either defuse the tensions or set the stage for a prolonged trade battle.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Charging Grid Readiness addresses how rising EV adoption, larger batteries, and fast charging affect electric utilities, using vehicle-to-grid, energy storage, mobile and temporary chargers, and smart charging to mitigate distribution stress.

Key Points

Planning and tech to manage EV load growth with V2G, storage and smart charging to avoid overloads on distribution grids.

✅ Lithium-ion costs may drop 60%, enabling new charger models

✅ Mobile and temporary chargers buffer local distribution peaks

✅ Smart charging and V2G defer transformer and feeder upgrades

The impacts of COVID-19 likely mean flat electric vehicle (EV) sales this year, but a trio of new reports say the long-term outlook is for strong growth — which means the electric grid and especially state power grids will need to respond.

As EV adoption grows, newer vehicles will put greater stress on the electric grid due to their larger batteries and capacity for faster charging, according to Rhombus Energy Solutions, while a DOE lab finds US electricity demand could rise 38% as EV adoption scales. A new white paper from the company predicts the cost of lithium-ion batteries will drop by 60% over the next decade, helping enable a new set of charging solutions.

Meanwhile, mobile and temporary EV charging will grow from 0.5% to 2% of the charging market by 2030, according to new Guidehouse research. The overall charging market is expected to reach reach almost $16 billion in revenues in 2020 and more than $60 billion by 2030. ​A third report finds long-range EVs are growing their share of the market as well, and charging them could cause stress to electric distribution systems. 

"One can expect that the number of EVs in fleets will grow very rapidly over the next ten years," according to Rhombus' report. But that means many fleet staging areas will have trouble securing sufficient charging capacity as electric truck fleets scale up.

"Given the amount of time it takes to add new megawatt-level power feeds in most cities (think years), fleet EVs will run into a significant 'power crisis' by 2030," according to Rhombus.

"Grid power availability will become a significant problem for fleets as they increase the number of electric vehicles they operate," Rhombus CEO Rick Sander said in a statement. "Integrating energy storage with vehicle-to-grid capable chargers and smart [energy management system] solutions as seen in California grid stability efforts is a quick and effective mitigation strategy for this issue."

Along with energy storage, Guidehouse says a new, more flexible approach to charger deployment enabled by grid coordination strategies will help meet demand. That means chargers deployed by a van or other mobile stations, and "temporary" chargers that can help fleets expand capacity. 

According to Guidehouse, the temporary units "are well positioned to de-risk large investments in stationary charging infrastructure" while also providing charge point networks and service providers "with new capabilities to flexibly supply predictable changes in EV transportation behaviors and demand surges."

"Mobile charging is a bit of a new area in the EV charging scene. It primarily leverages batteries to make chargers mobile, but it doesn't necessarily have to," Guidehouse Senior Research Analyst Scott Shepard told Utility Dive. 

"The biggest opportunity is with the temporary charging format," said Shepard. "The bigger units are meant to be located at a certain site for a period of time. Those units are interesting because they create a little more scale-ability for sites and a little risk mitigation when it comes to investing in a site."

"Utilities could use temporary chargers as a way to provide more resilient service, using these chargers in line with on-site generation," Shepard said.

Increasing rates of EV adoption, combined with advances in battery size and charging rates, "will impact electric utility distribution infrastructure at a higher rate than previously projected," according to new analysis from FleetCarma.

The charging company conducted a study of over 3,900 EVs, illustrating the rapid change in vehicle capabilities in just the last five years. According to FleetCarma, today's EVs use twice as much energy and draw it at twice the power level. The long-range EV has increased as a proportion of new electric vehicle sales from 14% in 2014 to 66% in 2019 in the United States, it found.

Long-range EVs "are very different from older electric vehicles: they are driven more, they consume more energy, they draw power at a higher level and they are less predictable," according to FleetCarma.

Guidehouse analysts say grid modernization efforts and energy storage can help smooth the impacts of charging larger vehicles. 

Mobile and temporary charging solutions can act as a "buffer" to the distribution grid, according to Guidehouse's report, allowing utilities to avoid or defer some transmission and distribution upgrade costs that could be required due to stress on the grid from newer vehicles.

"At a high level, there's enough power and energy to supply EVs with proper management in place," said Shepard. "And in a lot of different locations, those charging deployments will be built in a way that protects the grid. Public fast charging, large commercial sites, they're going to have the right infrastructure embedded."

"But for certain areas of the grid where there is low visibility, there is the potential for grid disruption and questions about whether the UK grid can cope with EV demand," said Shepard. "This has been on the mind of utilities but never realized: overwhelming residential transformers."

As EVs with higher charging and energy capacities are connected to the grid, Shepard said, "you are going to start to see some of those residential systems come under pressure, and probably see increased incidences of having to upgrade transformers." Some residential upgrades can be deferred through smarter charging programs, he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Electricity Export Retaliation signals tariff-fueled trade tensions as Doug Ford leverages cross-border energy flows to the U.S., risking grid reliability, higher power prices, and escalating a Canada-U.S. trade war over protectionist policies.

Key Points

A policy threat by Ontario to cut power exports to U.S. states in response to tariffs, leveraging grid dependence.

✅ Powers about 1.5M U.S. homes in NY, MI, and MN

✅ Risks price spikes, shortages, and legal challenges

✅ Part of Canada's CAD 30B retaliatory tariff package

In a move that underscores the escalating trade tensions between Canada and the United States, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has threatened to halt electricity exports to U.S. states in retaliation for the Trump administration's recent tariffs. This bold stance highlights Ontario's significant role in powering regions across the U.S. and serves as a warning about the potential consequences of trade disputes.

The Leverage of Ontario's Electricity

Ontario's electricity exports are not merely supplementary; they are essential to the energy supply of several U.S. states. The province provides power to approximately 1.5 million homes in states such as New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, even as it eyes energy independence through domestic initiatives. This substantial export positions Ontario as a key player in the regional energy market, giving the province considerable leverage in trade negotiations.

Premier Ford's Ultimatum

Responding to the Trump administration's imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian imports, Premier Ford, following a Washington meeting, declared, "If they want to play tough, we can play tough." He further emphasized his readiness to act, stating, "I’ll cut them off with a smile on my face." This rhetoric underscores Ontario's willingness to use its energy exports as a bargaining chip in the trade dispute.

Economic and Political Ramifications

The potential cessation of electricity exports to the U.S. would have profound economic implications. U.S. states that rely on Ontario's power could face energy shortages, leading to increased prices, particularly New York energy prices, and potential disruptions. Such an action would not only strain the energy supply but also escalate political tensions, potentially affecting other areas of bilateral cooperation.

Canada's Retaliatory Measures

Ontario's threat is part of a broader Canadian strategy to counteract U.S. tariffs. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods worth approximately CAD 30 billion, targeting products such as food, textiles, and furniture. These measures aim to pressure the U.S. administration into reconsidering its trade policies.

The Risk of Escalation

While leveraging energy exports provides Ontario with a potent tool, it also carries significant risks, as experts warn against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid tariff tensions. Such actions could lead to a full-blown trade war, with both countries imposing tariffs and export restrictions. The resulting economic fallout could affect various sectors, from manufacturing to agriculture, and lead to job losses and increased consumer prices.

International Trade Relations

The dispute also raises questions about the stability of international trade agreements and the rules governing cross-border energy transactions. Both Canada and the U.S. are signatories to various trade agreements that promote the free flow of goods and services, including energy. Actions like export bans could violate these agreements and lead to legal challenges.

Public Sentiment and Nationalism

The trade tensions have sparked a surge in Canadian nationalism, with public sentiment largely supporting tariffs on energy and minerals as retaliatory measures. This sentiment is evident in actions such as boycotting American products and expressing discontent at public events. However, while national pride is a unifying force, it does not mitigate the potential economic hardships that may result from prolonged trade disputes.

The Path Forward

Navigating this complex situation requires careful diplomacy and negotiation. Both Canada and the U.S. must weigh the benefits of trade against the potential costs of escalating tensions. Engaging in dialogue, seeking compromise, and adhering to international trade laws are essential steps to prevent further deterioration of relations and to ensure the stability of both economies.

Ontario's threat to cut off electricity exports to the U.S. serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of global trade and the potential consequences of protectionist policies. While such measures can be effective in drawing attention to grievances, they also risk significant economic and political fallout. As the situation develops, it will be crucial to monitor the responses of both governments and the impact on industries and consumers alike, including growing support for Canadian energy projects among stakeholders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

New York Climate Transition Costs highlight rising utility bills for ratepayers as the state pursues renewable energy, electrification, and a zero-emissions grid, with Inflation Reduction Act funding to offset consumer burdens while delivering health benefits.

Key Points

Ratepayer-funded costs to meet New York's renewable targets and zero-emissions grid, offset by federal incentives.

✅ $48B in projects funded by consumers over two decades

✅ Up to 10% of utility bills already paid by some upstate users

✅ Targets: 70% renewables by 2030; zero-emissions grid by 2040

A generational push to tackle climate change in New York that includes its Green New Deal is quickly becoming a pocketbook issue headed into 2024.

Some upstate New York electric customers are already paying 10 percent of their electricity bills to support the state’s effort to move off fossil fuels and into renewable energy. In the coming years, people across the state can expect to give up even bigger chunks of their income to the programs — $48 billion in projects is set to be funded by consumers over the next two decades.

The scenario is creating a headache for New York Democrats grappling with the practical and political risk of the transition.

It’s an early sign of the dangers Democrats across the country will face as they press forward with similar policies at the state and federal level. New Jersey, Maryland and California are also wrestling with the issue and, in some cases, are reconsidering their ambitious plans, including a 100% carbon-free mandate in California.

“This is bad politics. This is politics that are going to hurt all New Yorkers,” said state Sen. Mario Mattera, a Long Island Republican who has repeatedly questioned the costs of the state’s climate law and who will pay for it.

Democrats, Mattera said, have been unable to explain effectively the costs for the state’s goals. “We need to transition into renewable energy at a certain rate, a certain pace,” he said.

Proponents say the switch will ultimately lower energy bills by harnessing the sun and wind, result in significant health benefits and — critically — help stave off the most devastating climate change scenarios. And they hope new money to go green from the Inflation Reduction Act, celebrating its one-year anniversary, can limit costs to consumers.

New York has statutory mandates calling for 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and a fully “zero emissions” grid by 2040, among the most aggressive targets in the country, aligning with a broader path to net-zero electricity by mid-century. The grid needs to be greened, while demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050 — the same year when state law requires emissions to be cut by 85 percent from 1990 levels.

But some lawmakers in New York, particularly upstate Democrats, and similar moderates across the nation are worried about moving too quickly and sparking a backlash against higher costs, as debates over Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan illustrate. The issue is another threat to Democrats heading into the critical 2024 battleground House races in New York, which will be instrumental in determining control of Congress.

Even Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who is fond of saying that “we’re the last generation to be able to do anything” about climate change, last spring balked at the potential price tag of a policy to achieve New York’s climate targets, a concern echoed in debates over a fully renewable grid by 2030 elsewhere. And she’s not the only top member of her party to say so.

“If it’s all just going to be passed along to the ratepayers — at some point, there’s a breaking point, and we don’t want to lose public support for this agenda,” state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a Democrat, warned in an interview.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News