Redford taking on Texas coal-fired power plants

Germany Hydrogen Import Strategy outlines reliance on green hydrogen imports, expanded electrolysis capacity, IPCEI-funded pipelines, and industrial decarbonization for steel and chemicals to reach climate-neutral goals by 2045, meeting 2030 demand of 95-130 TWh.

Key Points

A plan to import 50-70% of hydrogen by 2030, backing green hydrogen, electrolysis, pipelines, and decarbonization.

✅ Imports cover 50-70% of 2030 hydrogen demand

✅ 10 GW electrolysis target with state aid and IPCEI

✅ 1,800 km H2 pipelines to link hubs by 2030

Germany will have to import up to 70% of its hydrogen demand in the future as Europe's largest economy aims to become climate-neutral by 2045, an updated government strategy published on Wednesday showed.

The German cabinet approved a new hydrogen strategy, setting guidelines for hydrogen production, transport infrastructure and market plans.

Germany is seeking to expand reliance on hydrogen as a future energy source to bolster energy resilience and cut greenhouse emissions for highly polluting industrial sectors that cannot be electrified such as steel and chemicals and cut dependency on imported fossil fuel.

Produced using solar and wind power, green hydrogen is a pillar of Berlin's plan to build a sustainable electric planet and transition away from fossil fuels.

But even with doubling the country's domestic electrolysis capacity target for 2030 to at least 10 gigawatts (GW), Germany will need to import around 50% to 70% of its hydrogen demand, forecast at 95 to 130 TWh in 2030, the strategy showed.

"A domestic supply that fully covers demand does not make economic sense or serve the transformation processes resulting from the energy transition and the broader global energy transition overall," the document said.

The strategy underscores the importance of diversifying future hydrogen sources, including potential partners such as Canada's clean hydrogen sector, but the government is working on a separate strategy for hydrogen imports whose exact date is not clear, a spokesperson for the economy ministry said.

"Instead of relying on domestic potential for the production of green hydrogen, the federal government's strategy is primarily aimed at imports by ship," Simone Peter, the head of Germany's renewable energy association, said.

Under the strategy, state aid is expected to be approved for around 2.5 GW of electrolysis projects in Germany this year and the government will earmark 700 million euros ($775 million) for hydrogen research to optimise production methods, research minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger said.

But Germany's limited renewable energy space will make it heavily dependent on imported hydrogen from emerging export hubs such as Abu Dhabi hydrogen exports gaining scale, experts say.

"Germany is a densely populated country. We simply need space for wind and photovoltaic to be able to produce the hydrogen," Philipp Heilmaier, an energy transition researcher at Germany energy agency, told Reuters.

The strategy allows the usage of hydrogen produced through fossil energy sources preferably if the carbon is split off, but said direct government subsidies would be limited to green hydrogen.

Funds for launching a hydrogen network with more than 1,800 km of pipelines in Germany are expected to flow by 2027/2028 through the bloc's Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) financing scheme, as the EU plans to double electricity use by 2050 could raise future demand, with the goal of connecting all major generation, import and storage centres to customers by 2030.

Transport Minister Volker Wissing said his ministry was working on plans for a network of hydrogen filling stations and for renewable fuel subsidies.

Environmental groups said the strategy lacked binding sustainability criteria and restriction on using hydrogen for sectors that cannot be electrified instead of using it for private heating or in cars, calling for a plan to eventually phase-out blue hydrogen which is produced from natural gas.

Germany has already signed several hydrogen cooperation agreements with countries such as clean energy partnership with Canada and Norway, United Arab Emirates and Australia.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Global Adjustment Appeal spotlights Ontario's electricity fee, regulatory charge vs tax debate, FIT contracts, green energy policy, and constitutional challenge as National Steel Car contests soaring power costs before the Ontario Superior Court.

Key Points

Court challenge over Ontario's global adjustment fee, disputing its status as a regulatory charge instead of a tax.

✅ Challenges classification of global adjustment as tax vs regulatory charge.

✅ Focuses on FIT contracts, renewable energy payments, power cost impacts.

✅ Appeals Ontario ruling; implications for ratepayers and policy.

A manufacturer of steel rail cars is pursuing an appeal after its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a major Ontario electricity fee was struck down earlier this year.

Lawyers for Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. filed a notice of appeal in July after Ontario Superior Court Justice Wendy Matheson ruled in June that an electricity fee known as the global adjustment charge was a regulatory charge, and not an unconstitutional tax used to finance policy goals, as National Steel Car alleges.

The company, the decision noted, began its legal crusade last year after seeing its electricity bills had “increased dramatically” since the Ontario government passed green energy legislation nearly a decade ago, and amid concerns that high electricity rates are hurting Ontario manufacturers.

Under that legislation, the judge wrote, “private suppliers of renewable energy were paid to ’feed in’ energy into Ontario’s electricity grid.” The contracts for these so-called “feed-in tariff” contracts, or FIT contracts, were the “primary focus” of the lawsuit.

“The applicant seeks a declaration that part of the amount it has paid for electricity is an unconstitutional tax rather than a valid regulatory charge,” the judge added. “More specifically, it challenges part of the Global Adjustment, which is a component of electricity pricing and incorporates obligations under FIT contracts.”

Chiefly representing the difference between Ontario’s market price for power and the guaranteed price owed to generators, global adjustment now makes up the bulk of the commodity cost of electricity in the province. The fee has risen over the past decade, amid calls to reject steep Nova Scotia rate hikes as well — costing electricity customers $37 billion in global adjustment from 2006 to 2014, according to the province’s auditor general — because of investments in the electricity grid and green-energy contracts, among other reasons.

National Steel Car argued the global adjustment is a tax, and an unconstitutional one at that because it violated a section of the Constitution Act requiring taxes to be authorized by the legislature. The company also said the imposition of the global adjustment broke an Ontario law requiring a referendum to be held for new taxes.

The province, Justice Matheson wrote, had argued “that it is plain and obvious that these applications will fail.” In a decision released in June, the judge granted motions to strike out National Steel Car’s applications.

“The Global Adjustment,” she added, “is not a tax because its purpose, in pith and substance, is not to tax, and it is a regulatory charge and therefore, again, not a tax.”

Now, National Steel Car is arguing that the judge erred in several ways, including in fact, “by finding that the FIT contracts must be paid, when they can be cancelled.”

There has been a change in government at Queen’s Park since National Steel Car first filed its lawsuit last year, and that change has put green energy contracts under fire. The Progressive Conservative government of new Premier Doug Ford has already made a number of decisions on the electricity file, such as moving to cancel and wind down more than 750 renewable energy contracts, as well as repealing the province’s Green Energy Act.

The Tories also struck a commission of inquiry into the province’s finances that warned the global adjustment “may be struck down as unconstitutional,” a warning delivered amid cases where Nova Scotia's regulator approved a 14% rate hike in a high-profile decision.

“There is a risk that a court may find the global adjustment is not a valid regulatory charge if shifting costs over a longer period of time inadvertently results in future ratepayers cross-subsidizing today’s ratepayers,” the commission’s report said.

A spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines said in an email that it would be “inappropriate to comment about the specifics of any case before the courts or currently under arbitration.”

National Steel Car is also prepared to fight its case all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, according to its lawyer.

“What is clear from our proceeding with the appeal is National Steel Car has every intention of seeing that lawsuit through to its conclusion if this government isn’t interested or prepared to reasonably settle it,” Jerome Morse said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California clean electricity accelerates with renewables as solar and wind surge, battery storage strengthens grid resilience, natural gas declines, and coal fades, advancing SB 100 targets, carbon neutrality goals, and affordable, reliable power statewide.

Key Points

California clean electricity is the state's transition to renewable, zero-carbon power, scaling solar, wind and storage.

✅ Solar generation up nearly 20x since 2012

✅ Natural gas power down 20%; coal nearly phased out

✅ Battery storage shifts daytime surplus to evening demand

Data from the California Energy Commission (CEC) highlight California’s continued progress toward building a more resilient grid, achieving 100 percent clean electricity and meeting the state’s carbon neutrality goals.

Analysis of the state’s Total System Electric Generation report shows how California’s power mix has changed over the last decade. Since 2012:

Solar generation increased nearly twentyfold from 2,609 gigawatt-hours (GWh) to 48,950 GWh.

• Wind generation grew by 63 percent.
• Natural gas generation decreased 20 percent.
• Coal has been nearly phased-out of the power mix, and renewable electricity surpassed coal nationally in 2022 as well.

In addition to total utility generation, rooftop solar increased by 10 times generating 24,309 GWh of clean power in 2022. The state’s expanding fleet of battery storage resources also help support the grid by charging during the day using excess renewable power for use in the evening.

“This latest report card showing how solar energy boomed as natural gas powered electricity experienced a steady 20 percent decline over the last decade is encouraging,” said CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda. “Even as climate impacts become increasingly severe, California remains committed to transitioning away from polluting fossil fuels and delivering on the promise to build a future power grid that is clean, reliable and affordable.”

Senate Bill 100 (2018) requires 100 percent of California’s electric retail sales be supplied by renewable and zero-carbon energy sources by 2045. To keep the state on track, last year Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1020, establishing interim targets of 90 percent clean electricity by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040.

The state monitors progress through the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which tracks the power mix of retail sales, and regional peers such as Nevada's RPS progress offer useful comparison. The latest data show that in 2021 more than 37 percent of the state’s electricity came from RPS-eligible sources such as solar and wind, an increase of 2.7 percent compared to 2020. When combined with other sources of zero-carbon energy such as large hydroelectric generation and nuclear, nearly 59 percent of the state’s retail electricity sales came from nonfossil fuel sources.

The total system electric generation report is based on electric generation from all in-state power plants rated 1 megawatt (MW) or larger and imported utility-scale power generation. It reflects the percentage of a specific resource compared to all power generation, not just retail sales. The total system electric generation report accounts for energy used for water conveyance and pumping, transmission and distribution losses and other uses not captured under RPS.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

BC Hydro Holiday Electricity Usage is set to rise as energy demand increases during peak 4-10 pm on Christmas and Boxing Day, driven by larger gatherings, more cooking, and eased COVID-19 restrictions province-wide.

Key Points

Expected rise in power demand on Christmas and Boxing Day evenings versus 2020, driven by larger gatherings and cooking.

✅ Peak hours 4-10 pm expected to rise in provincial load.

✅ 2020 saw 4% and 7% drops vs 2019 on Christmas and Boxing Day.

✅ Holiday lighting adds ~3% to use; switching to LED can save ~$40.

BC Hydro data showed residential electricity load in the Cariboo and throughout the province, even as drought affects generation dynamics heading into winter, dropped on Christmas Day and Boxing Day in 2020.

Northern Community Relations Manager, Bob Gammer, said the decrease was due in part to more people following the COVID-19 restrictions and not getting together for big meals, even though 2018 Earth Hour usage increased elsewhere illustrates how behavior can sometimes raise demand.

However, this year Gammer said between 4 and 10 pm on those two days, BC Hydro does expect to see a change in overall usage, aligning with all-time high demand trends reported recently in B.C.

“On Christmas Day and Boxing Day, we expect to see increases through those hours and a little bit more so between 4 and 10 pm we should see the amount of power being consumed across the province, as record-breaking 2021 demand indicated earlier, going up compared to what it was on those two days last year.”

In 2020 on Christmas Day evening hydro usage dropped by over 4 percent and Boxing Day evening decreased by 7 percent compared to 2019, whereas regions like Calgary's winter demand have seen spikes during extreme cold.

Gammer added after BC Hydro surveyed their customers and introduced a winter payment plan, they expect to see a lot more cooking happening on Christmas Day and Boxing Day this year as people are intending to have larger gatherings and visit friends.

We asked Gammer about hydro usage when it comes to homes decked out for the holidays, and how that compares to newer loads like crypto mining activity in B.C.

“The Christmas lighting displays people have, not just indoors but outdoors as well, what we’re seeing is about a 3 percent increase in electricity consumption overall through the Christmas season. If people switch, if you still have older lights that are incandescent, switch those over to LED, and through the season it could wind up saving you $40 in electricity just switching over about 8 strings of lights to LED.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News