Candidate wants coal-fired plant rejected

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Clean Energy Supply Chain Delays are slowing decarbonization as transformer lead times, grid infrastructure bottlenecks, and battery storage contractors raise costs and risk 2030 targets despite manufacturing expansions by Siemens Energy and GE Vernova.

Key Points

Labor and equipment bottlenecks delay transformers and grid upgrades, risking the UK's 2030 clean power target.

✅ Transformer lead times doubled or tripled, raising project costs

✅ Grid infrastructure and battery storage contractors in short supply

✅ Firms expand capacity cautiously amid uncertain demand signals

The United Kingdom's ambitious plans to transition to clean energy are encountering significant obstacles due to prolonged delays in obtaining essential equipment such as transformers and other electrical components. These supply chain challenges are impeding the nation's progress toward decarbonizing its power sector by 2030, even as wind leads the power mix in key periods.

Supply Chain Challenges

The global surge in demand for renewable energy infrastructure, including large-scale storage solutions, has led to extended lead times for critical components. For example, Statera Energy's storage plant in Thurrock experienced a 16-month delay for transformers from Siemens Energy. Such delays threaten the UK's goal to decarbonize power supplies by 2030.

Economic Implications

These supply chain constraints have doubled or tripled lead times over the past decade, resulting in increased costs and straining the energy transition as wind became the main source of UK electricity in a recent milestone. Despite efforts to expand manufacturing capacity by companies like GE Vernova, Hitachi Energy, and Siemens Energy, the sector remains cautious about overinvesting without predictable demand, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have reinforced concerns about delivery risks.

Workforce and Manufacturing Capacity

Additionally, there is a limited number of companies capable of constructing and maintaining battery sites, adding to the challenges. These issues underscore the necessity for new factories and a trained workforce to support the electrification plans and meet the 2030 targets.

Government Initiatives

In response to these challenges, the UK government is exploring various strategies to bolster domestic manufacturing capabilities and streamline supply chains while supporting grid reform efforts underway to improve system resilience. Investments in infrastructure and workforce development are being considered to mitigate the impact of global supply chain disruptions and advance the UK's green industrial revolution for next-generation reactors.

The UK's energy transition is at a critical juncture, with supply chain delays posing substantial risks to achieving decarbonization goals, including the planned end of coal power after 142 years for the UK. Addressing these challenges will require coordinated efforts between the government, industry stakeholders, and international partners to ensure a sustainable and timely shift to clean energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Power Market Overhaul targets soaring electricity prices by decoupling gas from power, boosting renewables, refining price caps, and stabilizing grids amid inflation, supply shocks, droughts, nuclear outages, and intermittent wind and solar.

Key Points

EU plan to redesign electricity pricing, curb gas-driven costs, boost renewables, and protect consumers from volatility.

✅ Decouples power prices from marginal gas generation

✅ Caps non-gas revenues to fund consumer relief

✅ Supports grid stability with storage, demand response, LNG

While energy prices are soaring around the world, Europe is in a particularly tight spot. Its heavy dependence on Russian gas -- on top of droughts, heat waves, an unreliable fleet of French nuclear reactors and a continent-wide shift to greener but more intermittent sources like solar and wind -- has been driving electricity bills up and feeding the highest inflation in decades. As Europe stands on the brink of a recession, and with the winter heating season approaching, officials are considering a major overhaul of the region’s power market to reflect the ongoing shift from fossil fuels to renewables.

1. How is electricity priced? 
Unlike oil or natural gas, there’s no efficient way to save lots of electricity to use in the future, though projects to store electricity in gas pipes are emerging. Commercial use of large-scale batteries is still years away. So power prices have been set by the availability at any given moment. When it’s really windy or sunny, for example, then more is produced relatively cheaply and prices are lower. If that supply shrinks, then prices rise because more generators are brought online to help meet demand -- fueled by more expensive sources. The way the market has long worked is that it is that final technology, or type of plant, needed to meet the last unit of consumption that sets the price for everyone. In Europe this year, that has usually meant natural gas. 

2. What is the relationship between power and gas? 
Very close. Across western Europe, gas plants have been a vital part of the energy infrastructure for decades, with Irish price spikes highlighting dispatchable power risks, fed in large part by supplies piped in from Siberia. Gas-fired plants were relatively quick to build and the technology straightforward, at least compared with nuclear plants and burns cleaner than coal. About 18% of Europe’s electricity was generated at gas plants last year; in 2020 about 43% of the imported gas came from Russia. Even during the depths of the Cold War, there’d never been a serious supply problem -- until the relationship with Russia deteriorated this year after it invaded Ukraine. Diversifying away from Russia, such as by increasing imports of liquefied natural gas, requires new infrastructure that takes a lot of time and money.

3. Why does it work this way? 
In theory, the relationship isn’t different from that with coal, for example. But production hiccups and heatwave curbs on plants from nuclear in France to hydro in Spain and Norway significantly changed the generation picture this year, and power hit records as plants buckled in the heat. Since coal-fired and nuclear plants are generally running all the time anyway, gas plants were being called upon more often -- at times just to keep the lights on as summer temperatures hit records. And with the war in Ukraine resulting in record gas prices, that pushed up overall production costs. It’s that relationship that has made the surging gas price the driver for electricity prices. And since the continent is all connected, it has pushed up prices across the region. The value of the European power market jumped threefold last year, to a record 836 billion euros ($827 billion today).

4. What’s being considered? 
With large parts of European industry on its knees and households facing jumps in energy bills of several hundred percent, as record electricity prices ripple through markets, the pressure on governments and the European Union to intervene has never been higher. One major proposal is to impose a price cap on electricity from non-gas producers, with the difference between that and the market price channeled to relief for consumers. While it sounds simple, any such changes would rip up a market design that’s worked for decades and could threaten future investments because of unintended consequences.

5. How did this market evolve?
The Nordic region and the British market were front-runners in the 1990s, then Germany followed and is now the largest by far. A trader can buy and sell electricity delivered later on same day in blocks of an hour or even down to 15-minute periods, to meet sudden demand or take advantage of price differentials. The price for these contracts is decided entirely by the supply and demand, how much the wind is blowing or which coal plants are operating, for example. Demand tends to surge early in the morning and late afternoon. This system was designed when fossil fuels provided the bulk of power. Now there are more renewables, which are less predictable, with wind and solar surpassing gas in EU generation last year, and the proposed changes reflect that shift. 

6. What else have governments done?
There are also traders who focus on longer-dated contracts covering periods several years ahead, where broader factors such as expected economic output and the extent to which renewables are crowding out gas help drive prices. This year’s wild price swings have prompted countries including Germany, Sweden and Finland to earmark billions of euros in emergency liquidity loans to backstop utilities hit with sudden margin calls on their trading.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Clean Electricity Standard targets a net-zero grid by 2035, using carbon pricing, CO2 caps, and carbon capture while expanding renewables and interprovincial trade to decarbonize power in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.

Key Points

A federal plan to reach a net-zero grid by 2035 using CO2 caps, carbon pricing, carbon capture, renewables, and trade.

✅ CO2 caps and rising carbon prices through 2050

✅ Carbon capture required on gas plants in high-emitting provinces

✅ Renewables build-out and interprovincial trade to balance supply

A new tool has been proposed in the federal election campaign as a way of eradicating the carbon emissions from Canada’s patchwork electricity system. 

As the country’s need for power grows through the decarbonization of transportation, industry and space heating, the Liberal Party climate plan is proposing a clean energy standard to help Canada achieve a 100% net-zero-electricity system by 2035, aligning with Canada’s net-zero by 2050 target overall. 

The proposal echoes a report released August 19 by the David Suzuki Foundation and a group of environmental NGOs that also calls for a clean electricity standard, capping power-sector emissions, and tighter carbon-pricing regulations. The report, written by Simon Fraser University climate economist Mark Jaccard and data analyst Brad Griffin, asserts that these policies would effectively decarbonize Canada’s electricity system by 2035.

“Fuel switching from dirty fossil fuels to clean electricity is an essential part of any serious pathway to transition to a net-zero energy system by 2050,” writes Tom Green, climate policy advisor to the Suzuki Foundation, in a foreword to the report. The pathway to a net-zero grid is even more important as Canada switches from fossil fuels to electric vehicles, space heating and industrial processes, even as the Canadian Gas Association warns of high transition costs.

Under Jaccard and Griffin’s proposal, a clean electricity standard would be established to regulate CO2 emissions specifically from power plants across Canada. In addition, the plan includes an increase in the carbon price imposed on electricity system releases, combined with tighter regulation to ensure that 100% of the carbon price set by the federal government is charged to electricity producers. The authors propose that the current scheduled carbon price of $170 per tonne of CO2 in 2030 should rise to at least $300 per tonne by 2050.

In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the 2030 standard would mean that all fossil-fuel-powered electricity plants would require carbon capture in order to comply with the standard. The provinces would be given until 2035 to drop to zero grams CO2 per kilowatt hour, matching the 2030 standard for low-carbon provinces (Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island). 

Alberta and Saskatchewan targeted 
Canada has a relatively clean electricity system, as shown by nationwide progress in electricity, with about 80% of the country’s power generated from low- or zero-emission sources. So the biggest impacts of the proposal will be felt in the higher-carbon provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta has a plan to switch from coal-based electric power to natural gas generation by 2023. But Saskatchewan is still working on its plan. Under the Jaccard-Griffin proposal, these provinces would need to install carbon capture on their gas-fired plants by 2030 and carbon-negative technology (biomass with carbon capture, for instance) by 2035. Saskatchewan has been operating carbon capture and storage technology at its Boundary Dam power station since 2014, but large-scale rollout at power plants has not yet been achieved in Canada. 

With its heavy reliance on nuclear and hydro generation, Ontario’s electricity supply is already low carbon. Natural gas now accounts for about 7% of the province’s grid, but the clean electricity standard could pose a big challenge for the province as it ramps up natural-gas-generated power to replace electricity from its aging Pickering station, scheduled to go out of service in 2025, even as a fully renewable grid by 2030 remains a debated goal. Pickering currently supplies about 14% of Ontario’s power. 

Ontario doesn’t have large geological basins for underground CO2 storage, as Alberta and Saskatchewan do, so the report says Ontario will have to build up its solar and wind generation significantly as part of Canada’s renewable energy race, or find a solution to capture CO2 from its gas plants. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance has kicked off a campaign to encourage the Ontario government to phase out gas-fired generation by purchasing power from Quebec or installing new solar or wind power.

As the report points out, the federal government has Supreme Court–sanctioned authority to impose carbon regulations, such as a clean electricity standard, and carbon pricing on the provinces, with significant policy implications for electricity grids nationwide.

The federal government can also mandate a national approach to CO2 reduction regardless of fuel source, encouraging higher-carbon provinces to work with their lower-carbon neighbours. The Atlantic provinces would be encouraged to buy power from hydro-heavy Newfoundland, for example, while Ontario would be encouraged to buy power from Quebec, Saskatchewan from Manitoba, and Alberta from British Columbia.

The Canadian Electricity Association, the umbrella organization for Canada’s power sector, did not respond to a request for comment on the Jaccard-Griffin report or the Liberal net-zero grid proposal.

Just how much more clean power will Canada need? 
The proposal has also kicked off a debate, and an IEA report underscores rising demand, about exactly how much additional electricity Canada will need in coming decades.

In his 2015 report, Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in Canada, energy and climate analyst Chris Bataille estimated that to achieve Canada’s climate net-zero target by 2050 the country will need to double its electricity use by that year.

Jaccard and Griffin agree with this estimate, saying that Canada will need more than 1,200 terawatt hours of electricity per year in 2050, up from about 640 terawatt hours currently.

But energy and climate consultant Ralph Torrie (also director of research at Corporate Knights) disputes this analysis.

He says large-scale programs to make the economy more energy efficient could substantially reduce electricity demand. A major program to install heat pumps and replace inefficient electric heating in homes and businesses could save 50 terawatt hours of consumption on its own, according to a recent report from Torrie and colleague Brendan Haley. 

Put in context, 50 terawatt hours would require generation from 7,500 large wind turbines. Applied to electric vehicle charging, 50 terawatt hours could power 10 million electric vehicles.

While Torrie doesn’t dispute the need to bring the power system to net-zero, he also doesn’t believe the “arm-waving argument that the demand for electricity is necessarily going to double because of the electrification associated with decarbonization.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Energy Grid Attacks intensify as missile strikes and drone raids hit power plants, substations, and transmission lines, causing blackouts, disrupted logistics, and humanitarian strain during winter, despite repairs, air defense, and allied aid.

Key Points

Missile and drone strikes on Ukraine's power grid to force blackouts, strain civilians, and disrupt military logistics.

✅ Targets: power plants, substations, transmission lines

✅ Impacts: blackouts, heating loss, hospital strain

✅ Goals: erode morale, disrupt logistics, force aid burdens

Russia’s continued strikes on Ukraine have taken a severe toll on the country’s critical infrastructure, particularly its energy grid, as Ukraine continues to keep the lights on despite sustained bombardment. In recent months, Western Ukraine has increasingly become a target of missile and drone attacks, leading to widespread power outages and compounding the challenges faced by the civilian population. These strikes aim to cripple Ukraine's resilience during a harsh winter season and disrupt its wartime operations.

Targeting Energy Infrastructure

Russian missile and drone assaults on Ukraine’s energy grid are part of a broader strategy to weaken the country’s morale and capacity to sustain the war effort. The attacks have primarily focused on power plants, transmission lines, and substations. Western Ukraine, previously considered a relative safe haven due to its distance from front-line combat zones, is now experiencing the brunt of this campaign.

The consequences of these strikes are severe. Rolling blackouts and unplanned outages have disrupted daily life for millions of Ukrainians, though authorities say there are electricity reserves that could stabilize supply if no new strikes occur, leaving homes without heating during freezing temperatures, hospitals operating on emergency power, and businesses struggling to maintain operations. The infrastructure damage has also affected water supplies and public transportation, further straining civilian life.

Aimed at Civilian and Military Impact

Russia’s targeting of Ukraine’s power grid has dual purposes. On one hand, it aims to undermine civilian morale by creating hardships during the cold winter months, even as Ukraine works to keep the lights on this winter through contingency measures. On the other, it seeks to hinder Ukraine’s military logistics and operations, which heavily rely on a stable energy supply for transportation, communications, and manufacturing of military equipment.

These attacks coincide with a broader strategy of attritional warfare, where Moscow hopes to exhaust Ukraine’s resources and diminish its ability to continue its counteroffensive operations. By disrupting critical infrastructure, Russia increases pressure on Ukraine's allies to step up humanitarian and military aid, stretching their capacities.

Humanitarian Consequences

The impact of these power cuts on the civilian population is profound. Millions of Ukrainians are enduring freezing temperatures without consistent access to electricity or heating. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, children, and those with disabilities, face heightened risks of hypothermia and other health issues.

Hospitals and healthcare facilities are under immense strain, relying on backup generators that cannot sustain prolonged use. In rural areas, where infrastructure is already weaker, the effects are even more pronounced, leaving many communities isolated and unable to access essential services.

Humanitarian organizations have ramped up efforts to provide aid, including distributing generators, warm clothing, and food supplies, while many households pursue new energy solutions to weather blackouts. However, the scale of the crisis often outpaces the resources available, leaving many Ukrainians to rely on their resilience and community networks.

Ukraine's Response

Despite the challenges, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of these attacks. The government and utility companies are working around the clock to repair damaged infrastructure and restore power to affected areas. Mobile repair teams and international assistance have played crucial roles in mitigating the impact of these strikes.

Ukraine’s Western allies have also stepped in to provide support. The European Union, the United States, and other countries have supplied Ukraine with energy equipment, financial aid, and technical expertise to help rebuild its energy grid, though recent decisions like the U.S. ending support for grid restoration complicate planning and procurement. Additionally, advanced air defense systems provided by Western nations have helped intercept some of the incoming missiles and drones, though not all attacks can be thwarted.

Russia’s Escalation Strategy

Russia’s focus on Western Ukraine reflects a shift in its strategy. Previously, attacks were concentrated on front-line areas and major urban centers in the east and south. However, by targeting the western regions, Moscow seeks to disrupt the relatively stable zones where displaced Ukrainians and critical supply chains are located.

Western Ukraine is also a hub for receiving and distributing international aid and military supplies. Striking this region not only undermines Ukraine’s internal stability but also sends a message to its allies about Russia’s willingness to escalate the conflict further.

Broader Implications

The attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid have broader geopolitical implications. By targeting infrastructure, Russia intensifies the pressure on Ukraine’s allies to continue providing support, even as Kyiv has at times helped Spain amid blackouts when capacity allowed, testing their unity and resolve. The destruction also poses long-term challenges for Ukraine’s post-war recovery, as rebuilding a modern and resilient energy system will require significant investments and time.

Moreover, these attacks highlight the vulnerability of civilian infrastructure in modern warfare, echoing that electricity is civilization amid winter conditions. The deliberate targeting of non-combatant assets underscores the need for international efforts to strengthen the protection of critical infrastructure and address the humanitarian consequences of such tactics.

The Russian attacks on Western Ukraine's power grid are a stark reminder of the devastating human and economic costs of the ongoing conflict. While Ukraine continues to demonstrate resilience and adaptability, the scale of destruction underscores the need for sustained international support. As the war drags on, the focus must remain on mitigating civilian suffering, rebuilding critical infrastructure, and pursuing a resolution that ends the violence and stabilizes the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News