CoalÂ’s hidden costs $345 billion: study

FERC Hydropower Licensing Dispute centers on FERC authority, Clean Water Act compliance, state water quality certifications, Federal Power Act timelines, and Army Corps dams on West Virginia's Monongahela River licenses.

Key Points

An inquiry into FERC's licensing process and state water quality authority for hydropower at Monongahela River dams.

✅ Questions on omitted state water quality conditions

✅ Debate over starting Clean Water Act certification timelines

✅ Potential impacts on states' rights and licensing schedules

As federal lawmakers, including Democrats pressing FERC, plan to consider a bill that would expand Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing authority, questions emerged on Tuesday about the process used by FERC to issue two hydropower licenses for existing dams in West Virginia.

In a letter to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee, Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as electricity pricing changes were being debated, raised questions about hydropower licenses issued for two dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Monongahela River in West Virginia.

U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, Bobby Rush (D-IL), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Sarbanes (D-MD), amid Maryland clean energy enforcement concerns, questioned why FERC did not incorporate all conditions outlined in a West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection water quality certificate into plans for the projects.

“By denying the state its allotted time to review this application and submit requirements on these licenses, FERC is undermining the state’s authority under the Clean Water Act and Federal Power Act to impose conditions that will ensure water quality standards are met,” the letter stated.

The House of Representatives was slated to consider the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043, later in the week. The measure would expand FERC authority over licensing processes, a theme mirrored in Maine's transmission line debate over interstate energy projects. Opponents of the bill argue that the changes would make it more difficult for states to protect their clean water interests.

West Virginia has announced plans to challenge FERC hydropower licenses for the dams on the Monongahela River, echoing Northern Pass opposition seen in New Hampshire.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada 2035 Clean Electricity Target faces a 48.4GW shortfall as renewable capacity lags; accelerating wind, solar PV, grid upgrades, and coherent federal-provincial policy is vital to reach zero-emissions power and strengthen transmission and distribution.

Key Points

Canada's plan to supply nearly 100% of electricity from zero-emitting sources by 2035, requiring renewable buildout.

✅ Average adds 2.6GW; shortfall totals 48.4GW by 2035

✅ Expand wind, solar PV, storage, and grid modernization

✅ Align federal-province policy; retire or convert thermal plants

GlobalData’s latest report, ‘Canada Power Market Size and Trends by Installed Capacity, Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Technology, Regulations, Key Players and Forecast, 2022-2035’, discusses the power market structure of Canada and, amid looming power challenges, provides historical and forecast numbers for capacity, generation and consumption up to 2035. Detailed analysis of the country’s power market regulatory structure, competitive landscape and a list of major power plants are provided. The report also gives a snapshot of the power sector in the country on broad parameters of macroeconomics, supply security, generation infrastructure, transmission and distribution infrastructure, electricity import and export scenario, degree of competition, regulatory scenario, and future potential. An analysis of the deals in the country’s power sector is also included in the report.

Canada is expected to fall short of its 2035 clean electricity target after reviewing the country’s current renewable capacity activity. The country has targeted to produce nearly 100% of its electricity from zero-emitting sources by 2035, while electricity associations' net-zero goals extend to 2050; however, the country is adding only 2.6GW of annual renewable capacity additions on average every year, which would mean a cumulative shortfall of 48.4GW.

Canada has good governmental support, but it is not doing enough to ensure its targets are met. If the country is to meet its target to produce nearly 100% of electricity from zero-emitting sources by 2035, the country should both increase the capacity and efficiency of renewable power plants, as well as provide comprehensive end-to-end policies at both the federal and provincial levels, as debates over whether Ontario is embracing clean power continue across provinces. It should also involve communities and businesses in raising awareness of the benefits of adopting renewable energy.

The country has a large amount of proven natural gas and oil reserves that are proving too tempting an opportunity, and the Canadian Government is planning to increase the capacity of its gas-based plants under net-zero regulations permit some gas in the power mix, to secure real-time demand and supply. However, the country’s dependency on gas-based plants creates a major challenge to achieve its 2035 clean electricity target.

If the Canadian Government is to meet its 2035 targets, it should draw on examples from its European counterparts and add renewable capacity at a rapid pace, while balancing demand and emissions in key provinces. One advantage for Canada here is that it does not have land constraints, which is common in other major renewable power-generating countries. This could give the country an estimated 6.1GW of renewable capacity every year on average during the 2021-2035 period: enough capacity to meet its target. Most of these installations are expected to be for wind and solar PV.

Changing provincial governments are not helpful when it comes to implementing long-term projects, especially as Ontario faces looming electricity shortfalls that heighten planning risks, and continued stopping and starting of projects like this will only be damaging to renewable goals. Another way the country can achieve its target is by converting thermal power plants into clean energy plants and providing a roadmap or timeline for provinces to retire thermal power plants completely, even as scrapping coal can be costly for some systems.

Canada’s GDP (at constant prices) increased from $1,617.3bn in 2010 to $1,924.5bn in 2021, at a CAGR of 1.6%. The GDP (at constant prices) of the country declined sharply from $1,943.8bn in 2019 to $1,840.5bn in 2020 because of Covid-19 pandemic. After the recommencement of regular industrial and trade activities, the GDP grew by 4.6% in 2021 from 2020. The GDP is expected to cross pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Florida Hurricane Irma Power Outages strain the grid as utilities plan rebuilds; FPL and Duke Energy deploy crews to restore transmission lines, substations, and service amid flooding, storm surge, and widespread disruptions statewide.

Key Points

Large-scale post-storm power losses in Florida requiring grid rebuilds, thousands of crews, and phased restoration.

✅ Utilities prioritize plants, transmission, substations, then critical facilities

✅ 50,000-60,000 workers mobilized; bucket trucks wait for safe winds

✅ Remote rerouting and hardening aid faster restoration amid flooding

Parts of Florida could be without electricity for more than a week, as damage from Hurricane Irma will require a complete rebuild of portions of the electricity grid, utility executives said on Monday.

Irma has knocked out power to 6.5 million Florida electricity customers, or nearly two-thirds of the state, since making landfall this weekend. In major areas such as Miami-Dade, 74 percent of the county was without power, according to Florida's division of emergency management.

Getting that power back online may require the help of 50,000 to 60,000 workers from all over the United States and Canadian power crews as well, according to Southern Company CEO and Chairman Thomas Fanning. He is also co-chair of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, which coordinates the utility industry and government response to disasters and cyberthreats.

While it is not uncommon for severe storms to down power lines and damage utility poles, Irma's heavy winds and rain batted some of the state's infrastructure to the ground, Fanning said.

"'Restore' may not capture the full sense of where we are. For the very hard impacted areas, I think you're in a 'rebuild' area," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

"That's a big deal. People need to understand this is going to take perhaps weeks, not days, in some areas," Fanning said.

Parts of northern Florida, including Jacksonville, experienced heavy flooding, which will temporarily prevent crews from accessing some areas.

Duke Energy, which serves 1.8 million customers in parts of central and northwestern Florida, is trying to restore service to 1.2 million residences and businesses.

Florida Power & Light Company, which provides power to an estimated 4.9 million accounts across the state, had about 3.5 million customers without electricity as of Monday afternoon, said Rob Gould, vice president and chief communications officer at FPL.

The initial damage assessments suggest power can be restored to parts of the state's east coast in just days, but some of the west coast will require rebuilding that could stretch out for weeks, Gould told CNBC's "Power Lunch."

"This is not a typical restoration that you're going to see. We actually for the first time in our company history have our entire 27,000-square-mile, 35-county territory under assault by Irma," he said.

FPL said it would first repair any damage to power plants, transmission lines and substations as part of its massive response to Irma, then prioritize critical facilities such as hospitals and water treatment plants. The electricity company would then turn its attention to areas that are home to supermarkets, gas stations and other community services.

Florida utilities invested billions into their systems after devastating hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005 in order to make them more resilient and easier to restore after a storm. Irma, which ranked among the most powerful storms in the Atlantic, has nevertheless tested those systems.

The upgrades have allowed FPL to automatically reroute power and address about 1.5 million outages, Gould said. The company strategically placed 19,500 restoration workers before the storm hit, but it cannot use bucket trucks to fix power lines until winds die down, he said.

Some parts of Florida's distribution system — the lines that deliver electricity from power plants to businesses and residences — run underground. However, the state's long coastline and the associated danger of storm surge and seawater incursion make it impractical to run lines beneath the surface in some areas.

Duke Energy has equipped 28 percent of its system with smart grid technology to reroute power remotely, according to Harry Sideris, Duke's state president for Florida. He said the company would continue to build out that capability in the future.

Duke deployed more than 9,000 linesmen and support crew members to Irma-struck areas, but cannot yet say how long some customers will be without power.

Separately, Gulf Power crews reported restoring service to more than 32,000 customers.

"At this time we do not know the exact restoration times. However, we're looking at a week or longer from the first look at the widespread damage that we had," Sideris told CNBC's "Closing Bell."

FPL said on Monday it was doing final checks before bringing back nuclear reactors that were powered down as Hurricane Irma hit Florida.

"We are in the process now of doing final checks on a few of them; we will be bringing those up," FPL President and CEO Eric Silagy told reporters.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.

Key Points

Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.

✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset

✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves

✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk

Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick. 

The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.

At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.

The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”

But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.

In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables. 

And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.

It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.

California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.

Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.

Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”

The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.

Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.

California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.

Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.

California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.

There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.

Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.

California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.

After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.” 

“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News