Colorado, Utah and Wyoming governors seek clean coal funding

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK power grid bottleneck is stalling renewable energy, with connection queues, planning delays, and transmission infrastructure gaps raising costs, slowing decarbonization, and deterring investment as government considers reforms led by a new chief adviser.

Key Points

Delays and capacity gaps that hinder connecting new generation and demand, raising costs and slowing decarbonization.

✅ Connection queues delay projects for years

✅ Planning and NIMBY barriers stall transmission builds

✅ Investment costs on bills risk political pushback

During his three decades at investment bank Morgan Stanley, Franck Petitgas developed a reputation for solving problems that vexed others. Fixing the UK’s creaking power grid could be his most challenging task yet.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak appointed Petitgas as his chief business adviser, and the former financier has been pushing to tackle the gridlock that’s left projects waiting endlessly for a connection, an issue he sees as one of the biggest problems for industry.

But there are no easy solutions to tackle the years-long queue to get on the grid or the drawn-out planning process for building clean power generation, with the energy transition stalled by supply delays compounding the problem. And sluggish progress in expanding and improving the electricity network is preventing the construction of new housing developments and offices, as well as slowing the transition to greener power.

That transition has already taken a knock after Sunak last week controversially watered down some of the UK’s climate ambitions, citing in part the cost to consumers. He also acknowledged the issues surrounding the grid and promised the “most transformative plans” in response, drawing on lessons from Europe’s power crisis where applicable. Those are due to be unveiled within weeks. 

Shortly after his appointment, Petitgas offered reassurances to business leaders at a meeting in Downing Street that solutions were being worked on, according to people familiar with the matter. But there’s a lack of confidence across business that enough will be done.

Cost is a big factor in the expansion of the electricity grid, and some argue a state-owned generation model could ease bills over time. Improving the onshore network alone could require investment of between £100 billion and £240 billion ($122-$293 billion) by 2050, according to a government analysis last year. 

With network expansion funded through power bills, that’s a big ask, particularly with Sunak trailing in polls ahead of an election expected next year.

“It’s very difficult for politicians to say more money should be on bills,” said Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of Energy UK, a trade body. “So you get to a situation where no one wants to pay for the infrastructure investment until it’s really sticky, and that’s where we’ve got to with the grid.”

There are huge competitive and economic implications if the UK falls further behind. With US President Joe Biden spending an estimated $370 billion on climate measures through his Inflation Reduction Act, and China already a world leader in electric vehicles, Britain’s grid inaction is holding it back in the global race to decarbonize, said Jess Ralston, an analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think tank.

“The UK is dithering and delaying, and not making any strategic decisions,” she said. “You can see companies just saying ‘I’m going to the US, or I’m going to China’.” 

In a statement, the government said it’s a “priority to speed up the time taken to connect new power generators and power consumers to the grid.” It added that it’s taking “significant steps to accelerate grid infrastructure,” including support for new Channel interconnectors announced this year.

The government expects demand for electricity to double by 2035 and that will mean more generation that needs to be linked up to the network by cables and pylons. Local grids will also have to expand to accommodate more connection points for electric vehicles and homes, and invest in large-scale energy storage capacity to balance supply.

But so far, the rapid rise in renewable energy investment has not been accompanied by matching spend on the power network, according to BloombergNEF, a pattern seen in Germany’s grid expansion woes as well.

“The pace and scale of what we now have to deliver is significantly different from the last few decades,” said Carl Trowell, president of UK strategic infrastructure at National Grid. “It’s a national endeavor.”

In June, Electricity Networks Commissioner Nick Winser sent the government recommendations for how to accelerate construction of more transmission infrastructure. He said efforts to decarbonize the power sector will be “wasted if we cannot get the power to homes and businesses.”

“We need a seriously stronger sense of urgency,” said Kevin O’Donovan, country manager for Statkraft UK, which is holding off investment in four wind farms and two solar projects due to grid connection delays.

In addition to cost, the other major stumbling block is planning. Politicians in the governing Conservative Party are wary of angering voters with new infrastructure in rural areas that typically vote Tory. Across the country, “Not In My Back Yard” campaigners – NIMBYs — pose a major challenge to projects.

Petitgas, 62, retired from Morgan Stanley last year after nearly 30 years at the bank, where he led its international division from London. The issues over connections and planning have been repeatedly pointed out to Petitgas by investors and trade groups over a series of meetings this year, according to people familiar with the matter, requesting anonymity discussing private talks.

Yet with a general election looming and the issue plagued by political headaches, many are skeptical that Sunak can find the solutions needed.

One business chief said Downing Street considers the issue too tricky and expensive to tackle in the short-term. Others are concerned that while Petitgas has license from Sunak, he doesn’t have influence across the relevant departments to get grids to the top of the agenda.

Wind Farms

Multiple parts of the UK’s climate plans are under pressure. Earlier this month, an auction for contracts to build new wind farms received zero bids from developers, even as wind leads the power mix in many regions, marking yet another green setback. 

The UK is already behind on its target of having 50 gigawatts of offshore wind built by 2030, up from 14 GW today. The challenge is accelerating development without railroading local communities.

Within Sunak’s Conservative Party, some lawmakers are pushing back on new infrastructure in their local areas. A group including Environment Secretary Therese Coffey and former Home Secretary Priti Patel is campaigning against building new pylons across a stretch of eastern England.

According to Adam Bell, director of policy at consultancy Stonehaven, backbench pressure means Sunak is unlikely to take major action on the grid in the near term. He doesn’t see the prime minister accepting Winser’s recommendations, least of all accelerating planning decisions.

“Over the last year, Sunak has favored party management over things that will benefit the country,” Bell said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Energy Transition Delays stem from grid bottlenecks, permitting red tape, solar tariff uncertainty, supply-chain shocks, and scarce affordable EVs, risking deeper fossil fuel lock-in despite climate targets for renewables, transmission expansion, and decarbonization.

Key Points

Delays driven by grid limits, permitting, and supply shocks that slow renewables, transmission, EVs, and decarbonization.

✅ Grid interconnection and transmission backlogs stall renewables

✅ Tariff probes and supply chains disrupt utility-scale solar

✅ Permitting, policy gaps, and EV costs sustain fossil fuel use

Big solar projects are facing major delays. Plans to adapt the grid to clean energy are confronting mountains of red tape. Affordable electric vehicles are in short supply.

The United States is struggling to squeeze opportunity out of an energy crisis that should have been a catalyst for cleaner, domestically produced power. After decades of putting the climate on the back burner, the country is finding itself unprepared to seize the moment and at risk of emerging from the crisis even more reliant on fossil fuels.

10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint
The problem is not entirely unique to the United States. Across the globe, climate leaders are warning that energy shortages including coal and nuclear disruptions prompted by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and high gas prices driven by inflation threaten to make the energy transition an afterthought — potentially thwarting efforts to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“The energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine has seen a perilous doubling down on fossil fuels by the major economies,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said at a conference in Vienna on Tuesday, according to prepared remarks. He warned governments and investors that a failure to immediately and more aggressively embrace clean energy could be disastrous for the planet.

U.S. climate envoy John F. Kerry suggested that nations are falling prey to a flawed logic that fossil fuels will help them weather this period of instability, undermining U.S. national security and climate goals, which has seen gas prices climb to a record-high national average of $5 per gallon. “You have this new revisionism suggesting that we have to be pumping oil like crazy, and we have to be moving into long-term [fossil fuel] infrastructure building,” he said at the Time100 Summit in New York this month. “We have to push back.”

Climate envoy John F. Kerry attends the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles on June 8. Kerry has criticized the tendency to turn toward fossil fuels in times of uncertainty. (Apu Gomes/AFP/Getty Images)
In the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China — the hurdles go beyond the supply-chain crisis and sanctions linked to the war in Ukraine. The country’s lofty goals for all carbon pollution to be gone from the electricity sector by 2035 and for half the cars sold to be electric by 2030 are jeopardized by years of neglect of the electrical grid, regulatory hurdles that have set projects back years, and failures by Congress and policymakers to plan ahead.
The challenges are further compounded by plans to build costly new infrastructure for drilling and exporting natural gas that will make it even harder to transition away from the fossil fuel.

“We are running into structural challenges preventing consumers and businesses from going cleaner, even at this time of high oil and gas prices,” said Paul Bledsoe, a climate adviser in the Clinton administration who now works on strategy at the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank. “It is a little alarming that even now, Congress is barely talking about clean energy.”

Consumers are eager for more wind and solar. Companies looking to go carbon-neutral are facing growing waitlists for access to green energy, and a Pew Research Center poll in late January found that two-thirds of Americans want the United States to prioritize alternative energy over fossil fuel production.

But lawmakers have balked for more than a decade at making most of the fundamental economic and policy changes such as a clean electricity standard that experts widely agree are crucial to an orderly and accelerated energy transition. The United States does not have a tax on carbon, nor a national cap-and-trade program that would reorient markets toward lowering emissions. The unraveling in Congress of President Biden’s $1.75 trillion Build Back Better plan has added to the head winds that green-energy developers face, even as climate law results remain mixed.

Vice President Harris tours electric school buses at Meridian High School in Falls Church, Va., on May 20. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
“There is literally nothing pushing this forward in the U.S. beyond the tax code and some state laws,” said Heather Zichal, a former White House climate adviser who is now the chief executive of the American Clean Power Association.

The effects of the U.S. government’s halting approach are being felt by solar-panel installers, who saw the number of projects in the most recent quarter fall to the lowest level since the pandemic began. There was 24 percent less solar installed in the first quarter of 2022 than in the same quarter of 2021.

The holdup largely stems from a Commerce Department investigation into alleged tariff-dodging by Chinese manufacturers. Faced with the potential for steep retroactive penalties, hundreds of industrial-scale solar projects were frozen in early April. Weak federal policies to encourage investment in solar manufacturing left American companies ill-equipped to fill the void.

“We shut down multiple projects and had to lay off dozens of people,” said George Hershman, chief executive of SOLV Energy, which specializes in large solar installations. SOLV, like dozens of other solar companies, is now scrambling to reassemble those projects after the administration announced a pause of the tariffs.

Meanwhile, adding clean electricity to the aging power grid has become an increasingly complicated undertaking, given the failure to plan for adequate transmission lines and long delays connecting viable wind and solar projects to the electricity network.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.

Key Points

Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.

✅ Investor report projects 3x-7x bills and $50B market transition costs

✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes

✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades

Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?

I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.

The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.

We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.

I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.

And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.

How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.

Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.

Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.

For low-income families that would be a real hardship.

Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.

Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.

Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.

Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”

Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.

To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”

Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Energy Security Bill drives private investment, diversifies from fossil fuels with hydrogen and offshore wind, strengthens an independent system operator, and extends the retail price cap to shield consumers from volatile gas markets.

Key Points

A UK plan to reform energy, cut fossil fuel reliance, boost hydrogen and wind, and extend the retail price cap.

✅ Targets £100bn private investment and 480,000 jobs by 2030.

✅ Creates an independent system operator for grid planning.

✅ Extends retail energy price cap; mitigates volatile gas costs.

The British government said that plans to bolster the country's energy security, diversify away from fossil fuels amid the Europe energy crisis and protect consumers from spiralling prices are set to become law.

Britain's energy security bill will be introduced to Parliament on Wednesday and includes 26 measures to reform the energy system, including ending the gas-electricity price link, and reduce its dependency on fossil fuels and exposure to volatile gas prices.

Global energy prices have skyrocketed this year, and UK natural gas and electricity have risen sharply, particularly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine which has led to many European countries trying to reduce reliance on Russian pipeline gas and seek cheaper alternatives.

The bill will help drive 100 billion pounds ($119 billion) of private sector investment by 2030 into industries to diversify Britain's energy supply, including hydrogen and offshore wind, which could help lower costs as a 16% decrease in bills in April is anticipated, and create around 480,000 jobs by the end of the decade, the government said.

"We’re going to slash red tape, get investment into the UK, and grab as much global market share as possible in new technologies to make this plan a reality," Business and Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, amid high winter energy costs, said in a statement.

The bill will establish a new independent system operator to coordinate and plan Britain's energy system, while MPs move to restrict prices for gas and electricity through oversight.

It will also enable the extension of a cap on retail energy prices beyond 2023, with the price cap cost under scrutiny, which limits the amount suppliers can charge for each unit of gas and electricity.

The bill will also enable the secretary of state to prevent potential disruptions to the downstream oil sector due to industrial action or malicious protests, the government added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News