Sailmaker looks to generate current

BC-Alberta Transmission Intertie enables clean hydro to balance wind and solar, expanding transmission capacity so Site C hydro can dispatch power, cut emissions, lower costs, and accelerate electrification across provincial grids under federal climate policy.

Key Points

A cross-provincial grid link using BC hydro to firm Alberta wind and solar, cutting emissions and costs.

✅ Balances variable renewables with dispatchable hydro from Site C.

✅ Enables power trade: peak exports, low-cost wind imports.

✅ Lowers decarbonization costs and supports electrification goals.

By Mark Jaccard

Lost in the news and noise of the federal government's newly announced $170-per-tonne carbon tax was a single, critical sentence in Canada's updated climate plan, one that signals a strategy that could serve as the cornerstone for a future free of greenhouse gas emissions.

"The government will work with provinces and territories to connect parts of Canada that have abundant clean hydroelectricity with parts that are currently more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation — including by advancing strategic intertie projects."

Why do we think this one sentence is so important? And what has it got to do with the controversial Site C project Site C electricity debate under construction in British Columbia?

The answer lies in the huge amount of electricity we'll need to generate in Canada to achieve our climate goals for 2030 and 2050. Even while we aggressively pursue energy efficiency, our electric cars, buses and perhaps trucks in Canada's net-zero race will need a huge amount of new electricity, as will our buildings and industries. 

Luckily, Canada is blessed with an electricity system that is the envy of the world — already over 80 per cent zero emission, the bulk being from flexible hydro-electricity, with a backbone of nuclear power largely in Ontario, a national electricity success and rapidly growing shares of cheap wind and solar. 

Provincial differences
Yet the story differs significantly from one province to another. While B.C.'s electricity is nearly emissions free, the opposite is true of its neighbour, Alberta, where more than 80 per cent still comes from fossil fuels. This, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years.

Now imagine if B.C. and Alberta were one province.

This might sound like the start of a bad joke, or a horror movie to some, but it's the crux of new research by a trio of energy economists who put a fine point on the value of such co-operation.

The study, by Brett Dolter, Kent Fellows and Nic Rivers, takes a detailed look at the economic case for completing Site C, BC Hydro's controversial large hydro project under construction, and makes three key conclusions.

First, they argue Site C should likely not have been started in the first place. Only a narrow set of assumptions can now justify its total cost. But what's done is done, and absent a time machine, the decision to complete the dam rests on go-forward costs.

On that note, their second conclusion is no more optimistic. Considering the cost to complete the project, even accounting for avoiding termination costs should it be cancelled, they find the economics of completing Site C over-budget status to be weak. If the New York Times had a Site C needle in the style of the newspaper's election visual, it would be "leaning cancel" at this point.

In Alberta, more than 80 per cent of the electricity still comes from fossil fuels, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years. (CBC)
But it is their third conclusion that stands out as worthy of attention. They argue there is a case for completing Site C if the following conditions are met:

B.C. and Alberta reduce their electricity sector emissions by more than 75 per cent (this really means Alberta, given B.C.'s already clean position); and

B.C. and Alberta expand their ability to move electricity between their respective provinces by building new transmission lines.

Let's deal with each of these in turn.

On Condition 1, we give an emphatic: YES! Reducing electricity emissions is an absolute must to meet climate pledges if Canada is to come even close to achieving its net-zero goals. As noted above, a clean electricity grid will be the cornerstone of a decarbonized economy as we generate a great deal more power to electrify everything from industrial processes to heating to transportation and more. 

Condition 2 is more challenging. Talk of increasing transmission connections across Canada, including Hydro-Québec's U.S. strategy has been ongoing for over 50 years, with little success to speak of. But this time might well be different. And the implications for a completed Site C, should the government go that route, are profound.

Wind and solar costs rapidly declining
Somewhat ironically, the case for Site C is made stronger by the rapidly declining costs of two of its apparent renewable competitors: wind and solar.

The cost of wind and solar generation has fallen by 70 per cent and 90 per cent, respectively, a dramatic decline in the past 10 years. No longer can these variable sources of power be derided as high cost; they are unequivocally the cheapest sources of raw energy in electricity systems today.

However, electricity system operators must deal with their "non-dispatchability," a seemingly complicated term that simply means they produce electricity only when the sun shines and the wind blows, which is not necessarily when electricity customers want their electricity delivered (dispatched) to them. And because of this characteristic, the value of dispatchable electricity sources, like a completed Site C, will grow as a complement to wind and solar. 

Thus, as Alberta's generation of cheap wind and solar grows, so too does the value of connecting it with the firm, dispatchable resources available in B.C.

Rather than displacing wind and solar, large hydro facilities with the ability to increase or decrease output on short notice can actually enable more investment in these renewable sources. Expanding the transmission connection, with Site C on one side of that line, becomes even more valuable.

Many in B.C. might read this and rightly ask themselves, why should we foot the bill for this costly project to help out Albertans? The answer is that it won't be charity — B.C. will get paid handsomely for the power it delivers in peak periods and will be able to import wind power at low prices from Alberta in other times. B.C. will benefit greatly from these gains of trade.

Turning to Alberta, why should Albertans support B.C. reaping these gains? The answer is two-fold.

First, Site C will actually enable more low-cost wind and solar to be built in Alberta due to hydro's ability to balance these non-dispatchable renewables. Jobs and economic opportunity will occur in Alberta from this renewable energy growth.

Second, while B.C. imports won't come cheap, they will be less costly than the decarbonization alternatives Alberta would need without B.C.'s flexible hydro, as the economists' study shows. This means lower overall costs to Alberta's power consumers.

A clear role for Ottawa
To be sure, there are challenges to increasing the connectedness of B.C. and Alberta's power systems, not least of which is BC Hydro being a regulated, government-owned monopoly while Alberta is a competitive market amongst private generators. Some significant accommodations in climate policy and grids will be needed to ensure both sides can compete and benefit from trade on an equal footing.

There is also the pesky matter of permitting and constructing thousands of kilometres of power lines. Getting linear energy infrastructure built in Canada has not exactly been our forte of late.

We are not naive to the significant challenges in such an approach, but it's not often that we see such a clear narrative for beneficial climate action that, when considered at the provincial level, is likely to be thwarted, but when considered more broadly can produce a big win.

It's the clearest example yet of a role for the federal government to bridge the gap, to facilitate the needed regulatory conversations, and, let's be frank, to bring money to the table to make the line happen. Neither provincial side is likely to do it on their own, nor, as history has shown, are they likely to do it together. 

For a government committed to reducing emissions, and with a justified emphasis on the electricity sector, the opportunity to expand the Alberta-B.C. transmission intertie, leveraging the flexibility of B.C.'s hydro with the abundance of wind and solar potential on the Prairies, offers a potential massive decarbonization win for Western Canada that is too good to ignore.

Mark Jaccard, a professor at Simon Fraser University, and Blake Shaffer, a professor at the University of Calgary

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

NERC COVID-19 Grid Security Alert urges utilities to update business continuity plans, assess supply chain risk, and harden cybersecurity against spearphishing, social engineering, and remote-work vulnerabilities to protect the U.S. power grid and critical infrastructure.

Key Points

A notice urging U.S. utilities to fortify pandemic continuity, secure supply chains, and enhance cybersecurity.

✅ Mandates updates to business continuity and pandemic readiness plans

✅ Flags supply chain risks for PPE, electronics, chemicals, and logistics

✅ Warns of spearphishing, social engineering, VPN and remote-work threats

The top U.S. grid security monitor urged power utilities to prepare for the new coronavirus in a rare alert yesterday, adding to a chorus of warnings from federal and private organizations.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. called for power providers to update business continuity plans in case of a pandemic outbreak and weigh the need to prioritize construction or maintenance projects, including updates on major projects like BC Hydro's Site C, while the COVID-19 virus continues to spread.

NERC is requiring electric utilities to answer questions on their readiness for a possible pandemic, including potential staffing strategies such as on-site sequestering, by March 20, an unusual step that underscores the severity of the threat to U.S. power systems.

The Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, NERC's hub for getting the word out on dangers and vulnerabilities for the grid, also sent out an "all-points bulletin" on Feb. 5 addressing the coronavirus outbreak. That nonpublic document covered "potential supply chain issues stemming from a manufacturing slowdown in Asia," NERC spokeswoman Kimberly Mielcarek said.

Among offering basic hygiene and awareness recommendations, NERC's latest alert also encourages utilities to take stock of resources with supply chains affected by the virus. Because "China and nearby southeast Asian nations" have been impacted, NERC said, the supply chain hits will likely include "electronics, personal protective equipment and sanitation supplies, chemicals, and raw materials." The nonprofit grid overseer also warned of global transportation disruptions.

NERC also recommended utilities be on the lookout for cyberattacks taking advantage of the panic and using "coronavirus-themed opportunistic social engineering attacks" to hack into power companies' networks. Social engineering attacks are when hackers use social interactions to manipulate targets into giving up sensitive information.

"Spearphishing, watering hole, and other disinformation tactics are commonly used to exploit public interest in significant events," the alert said.

Electric utility representatives said they're working on or have already completed some of the steps outlined in NERC's alert, though nuclear plant workers have cited a lack of precautions in some cases.

"At this point, many of our members are activating and/or reviewing their business continuity and preparedness plans to ensure that operations and infrastructure are properly supported," said Tobias Sellier, director of media relations for the American Public Power Association, which represents around 1,400 electric utilities.

The power providers are also collaborating with other utilities such as "water, wastewater and gas," Sellier said.

Stephen Bell, senior director of media and public relations at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, said his group's members "have already taken a number of steps recommended by NERC" while continuing to maintain operations.

"Co-ops continue working with local, state and federal stakeholders to remain vigilant and prepared. These preparations include more frequent communications to key stakeholders, updating business continuity plans and monitoring new information from public health officials," said Bell.

Last week the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC), a panel of government and industry officials charged with responding to power-sector emergencies, scheduled a conference call discussing how to protect the grid from disruption if the virus infects system operators. Ohio-based utility American Electric Power Co. said it is limiting public visits, has created a high-level response team and is working to ensure operations can continue, while reinforcing downed power line safety, if the virus keeps spreading (Energywire, March 6).

Scott Aaronson, vice president for security and preparedness of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents major investor-owned utilities, said that the electric sector practices "contingency planning" to deal with unusual situations such as the coronavirus. That means that while the type of emergency may be new, dealing with an emergency situation is not, he said. Aaronson added that many of NERC's recommendations are based on what companies are already doing.

"We have heightened awareness given the circumstances, and we have messaging to employees all the way up and down the chain — from CEOs to frontline workers — that: given this time of heightened awareness and potential vulnerability, we have to practice hygiene both of the personal and cyber variety," said Aaronson.

Aaronson said that the ESCC had another call this week with the departments of Energy and Homeland Security and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stay on top of the issue.

Hacking concerns
In a cybersecurity event yesterday, Lisa Monaco, co-chair of the Aspen Cybersecurity Group and former homeland security adviser during the Obama administration, warned that the coronavirus should be considered a national security threat.

"Frankly, [pandemic] is the thing that kept me up at night amongst many, many things that kept me up at night for four years in the White House," Monaco said.

Monaco went on to say the virus will strain organizations' IT infrastructure as more employees work remotely and households face higher electricity bills, and lead to "potentially more vulnerabilities for bad actors when it comes to cybersecurity."

On Friday, the DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency released advice on steps that can be taken to lessen the virus's impact on supply chains and cybersecurity, as well as tips for defending against scams exploiting coronavirus fears.

Cybersecurity firms also have been reporting a dramatic increase in spear-phishing attacks, with hackers reportedly using the coronavirus topic as a lure to trick victims into clicking a malicious link. Whether it's hackers aiming at industries susceptible to shipping disruptions, attacking countries like Italy hit particularly hard by the virus or even masquerading as the World Health Organization, cybercriminals are taking full advantage of the crisis, experts say.

Greg Young, vice president of cybersecurity at Trend Micro, said businesses should continue to expect an increase in targeted phishing attacks.

"With a large majority of businesses switching to a work-from-home model and less emphasis on in-person meetings, we also anticipate that malicious actors will start to impersonate digital tools such as 'free' remote conferencing services and other cloud computing software," said Young.

Working from home can be especially risky, as often home networks are less secure than corporate offices, Young said — meaning a hacker aiming to get into an enterprise network could find an "easier attack path" from a home office.

The Department of Energy is asking employees to make sure they can work remotely when needed, even as some agencies set limits with EPA telework policy, including updating security questions and asking those with government-furnished laptops to be sure they have a VPN, or virtual private network, account. In a post added this week to the agency's website, Chief Information Officer Rocky Campione said the department over the next two weeks will be initiating steps to ensure there is adequate network capacity to carry out DOE's work.

"Ensuring the continued operations of the department's many varied missions requires diligence," Campione said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increases hit Peco, PPL, and Pike County, driven by natural gas costs and wholesale power markets; default rate changes, price to compare shifts, and time-of-use plans affect residential bills.

Key Points

Electric default rates are rising across Pennsylvania as natural gas costs climb, affecting Peco, PPL, and Pike customers.

✅ PPL, Peco, and Pike raising default rates Dec. 1

✅ Natural gas costs driving wholesale power prices

✅ Consider standard offer, TOU rates, and efficiency

Energy costs for electric customers are going up by as much as 50% across Pennsylvania next week, the latest manifestation of US electricity price increases impacting gasoline, heating oil, propane, and natural gas.

Eight Pennsylvania electric utilities are set to increase their energy prices on Dec. 1, reflecting the higher cost to produce electricity. Peco Energy, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, will boost its energy charge by 6.4% on Dec. 1, from 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour to about 7 cents per kWh. Energy charges account for about half of a residential bill.

PPL Electric Utilities, the Allentown company that serves a large swath of Pennsylvania including parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties, will impose a 26% increase on residential energy costs on Dec. 1, from about 7.5 cents per kWh to 9.5 cents per kWh. That’s an increase of $40 a month for an electric heating customer who uses 2,000 kWh a month.

Pike County Light & Power, which serves about 4,800 customers in Northeast Pennsylvania, will increase energy charges by 50%, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

“All electric distribution companies face the same market forces as PPL Electric Utilities,” PPL said in a statement. Each Pennsylvania utility follows a different PUC-regulated plan for procuring energy from power generators, and those forces can include rising nuclear power costs in some regions, which explains why some customers are absorbing the hit sooner rather than later, it said.

There are ways customers can mitigate the impact. Utilities offer a host of programs and grants to support low-income customers, and some states are exploring income-based fixed charges to address affordability, and they encourage anyone struggling to pay their bills to call the utility for help. Customers can also control their costs by conserving energy. It may be time to put on a sweater and weatherize the house.

Peco recently introduced time-of-use rates — as seen when Ontario ended fixed pricing — that include steep discounts for customers who can shift electric usage to late night hours — that’s you, electric vehicle owners.

There’s also a clever opportunity available for many Pennsylvania customers called the “standard offer” that might save you some real money, but you need to act before the new charges take effect on Dec. 1 to lock in the best rates.

Why are the price hikes happening?
But first, how did we get here?

Energy charges are rising for a simple reason: Fuel prices for power generators are increasing, and that’s driven mostly by natural gas. It’s pushing up electricity prices in wholesale power markets and has lifted typical residential bills in recent years.

“It’s all market forces right now,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, PUC spokesperson. Energy charges are strictly a pass-through cost for utilities. Utilities aren’t allowed to mark them up.

The increase in utility energy charges does not affect customers who buy their energy from competitive power suppliers in deregulated electricity markets. About 27% of Pennsylvania’s 5.9 million electric customers who shop for electricity from third-party suppliers either pay fixed rates, whose price remains stable, or are on a variable-rate plan tied to market prices. The variable-rate electric bills have probably already increased to reflect the higher cost of generating power.

Most New Jersey electric customers are shielded for now from rising energy costs. New Jersey sets annual energy prices for customers who don’t shop for power. Those rates go into effect on June 1 and stay in place for 12 months. The current energy market fluctuations will be reflected in new rates that take effect next summer, said Lauren Ugorji, a spokesperson for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., New Jersey’s largest utility.

For each utility, its own plan
Pennsylvania has a different system for setting utility energy charges, which are also known as the “default rate,” because that’s the price a customer gets by default if they don’t shop for power. The default rate is also the same thing as the “price to compare,” a term the PUC has adopted so consumers can make an apples-to-apples comparison between a utility’s energy charge and the price offered by a competitive supplier.

Each of the state’s 11 PUC-regulated electric utilities prepares its own “default service plan,” that governs the method by which they procure power on wholesale markets. Electric distribution companies like Peco are required to buy the lowest priced power. They typically buy power in blind auctions conducted by independent agents, so that there’s no favoritism for affiliated power generators

Some utilities adjust charges quarterly, and others do it semi-annually. “This means that each [utility’s] resulting price to compare will vary as the market changes, some taking longer to reflect price changes, both up and down,” PPL said in a statement. PPL conducted its semi-annual auction in October, when energy prices were rising sharply.

Most utilities buy power from suppliers under contracts of varying durations, both long-term and short-term. The contracts are staggered so market price fluctuations are smoothed out. One utility, Pike County Power & Light, buys all its power on the spot market, which explains why its energy charge will surge by 50% on Dec. 1. Pike County’s energy charge will also be quicker to decline when wholesale prices subside, as they are expected to next year.

Peco adjusts its energy charge quarterly, but it conducts power auctions semi-annually. It buys about 40% of its power in one-year contracts, and 60% in two-year contracts, and does not buy any power on spot markets, said Richard G. Webster Jr., Peco’s vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

“At any given time, we’re replacing about a third of our supplied portfolio,” he said.

The utility’s energy charge affects only part of the monthly bill. For a Peco residential electric customer who uses 700 kWh per month, the Dec. 1 energy charge increase will boost monthly bills by $2.94 per month, or 2.9%. For an electric heating customer who uses about 2,000 kWh per month, the change will boost bills $8.40 a month, or about 3.5%, said Greg Smore, a Peco spokesperson.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nation Rise Wind Farm Ruling overturns Ontario cancellation, as Superior Court finds the minister's decision unreasonable; EDP Renewables restarts 100-megawatt project near Cornwall, citing jobs, clean energy, and procedural fairness over bat habitat concerns.

Key Points

Ontario court quashes cancellation, letting EDP Renewables finish 100 MW Nation Rise project and resume clean energy.

✅ Judges call minister's decision unreasonable, unfair

✅ EDP Renewables to restart construction near Cornwall

✅ 100 MW, 29 turbines; costs awarded, appeal considered

Construction of a wind farm in eastern Ontario, as wind power makes gains nationwide, will move ahead after a court quashed a provincial government decision to cancel the project.

In a ruling released Wednesday, a panel of Ontario Superior Court judges said the province's decision to scrap the Nation Rise Wind Farm in December 2019 did not meet the proper requirements.

At the time, Environment Minister Jeff Yurek revoked the approvals of the project near Cornwall, Ont., citing the risk to three bat species.

That decision came despite a ruling from the province's Environmental Review Tribunal that determined the risk the project posed to the bat population was negligible.

The judges said the minister's decision was "unreasonable" and "procedurally unfair."

"The decision does not meet requirements of transparency, justification, and intelligibility, as the Minister has failed to adequately explain his decision," the judges wrote in their decision.

The company behind the project, EDP Renewables, said the 29-turbine wind farm was almost complete when its approval was revoked in December, even as Alberta saw TransAlta scrap a wind farm in a separate development.

The company said Thursday it plans to restart construction on the 100-megawatt wind farm.

"EDPR is eager to recommence construction of the Nation Rise Wind Farm, which will bring much-needed jobs and investment to the community," the company said in a statement. "This delay has resulted in unnecessary expenditures to-date, at a time when governments and businesses should be focused on reducing costs and restarting the economy."

A spokesman for Yurek said the government is disappointed with the outcome of the case but did not comment on a possible appeal.

"At this time, we are reviewing the decision and are carefully considering our next steps," Andrew Buttigieg said in a statement.

NDP climate change critic Peter Tabuns said the court decision is an embarrassment for the minister and the government. He urged the government not to pursue an appeal.

Yurek "was found to have ignored the evidence and the facts," he said. "They didn't just lose, their case collapsed. They had nothing to stand on. Taking this to appeal would be a complete and total waste of money."

Green party Leader Mike Schreiner said the ruling proves the government was acting based on ideology over evidence when it revoked the project's approval.

"As we shift towards a post-COVID recovery, we need the Ford government to give up the irrational crusade against affordable and reliable clean energy," Schreiner said in a statement.

Last year, the NDP revealed the province had spent $231 million to cancel more than 750 renewable energy contracts, a move Ford said he was proud of, shortly after winning the 2018 election.

The Progressive Conservatives have blamed the previous Liberal government, as leadership candidates debate how to fix power, for signing the bad energy deals while the province had an oversupply of electricity.

The Ford government, amid a new stance on wind power, has also said that by cancelling the contracts it would ultimately save ratepayers $790 million -- a figure industry officials have disputed.

At the time of the wind farm cancellation, the government also said it would introduce legislation that would protect consumers from any costs incurred, though a developer warned cancellations could exceed $100M at the time.

It has since acknowledged it will have to pay some companies to cancel the deals and set aside $231 million to reach agreements with those firms, and more recently has moved to reintroduce renewable projects in some cases.

On Wednesday, the judges awarded Nation Rise $126,500 in costs, which the government will have to pay.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Russia-Ukraine Energy War disrupts infrastructure, oil, gas, and electricity, triggering supply shocks, price spikes, and inflation. Global markets face volatility, import risks, and cybersecurity threats, underscoring energy security, grid resilience, and diversified supply.

Key Points

It is Russia's strategic targeting of Ukraine's energy system to disrupt supplies, raise prices, and hit global markets.

✅ Attacks weaponize energy to strain Ukraine and allies

✅ Supply shocks risk oil, gas, and electricity price spikes

✅ Urgent need for cybersecurity, grid resilience, diversification

Russia's targeting of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has unleashed an "energy war" that could lead to widespread price increases, supply disruptions, and ripple effects throughout the global energy market, felt across the continent, with warnings of Europe's energy nightmare taking shape.

This highlights the unprecedented scale and severity of the attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. These attacks have disrupted power supplies, prompting increased electricity imports to keep the lights on, hindered oil and gas production, and damaged refineries, impacting Ukraine and the broader global energy system.

Energy as a Weapon

Experts claim that Russia's deliberate attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure represent a strategic escalation, amid energy ceasefire violations alleged by both sides, demonstrating the Kremlin's willingness to weaponize energy as part of its war effort. By crippling Ukraine's energy system, Russia aims to destabilize the country, inflict suffering on civilians, and undermine Western support for Ukraine.

Impacts on Global Oil and Gas Markets

The ongoing attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure could significantly impact global oil and gas markets, leading to supply shortages and dramatic price increases, even as European gas prices briefly returned to pre-war levels earlier this year, underscoring extreme volatility. Ukraine's oil and gas production, while not massive in global terms, is still significant, and its disruption feeds into existing anxieties about global energy supplies already affected by the war.

Ripple Effects Beyond Ukraine

The impacts of the "energy war" won't be limited to Ukraine or its immediate neighbours. Price increases for oil, gas, and electricity are expected worldwide, further fueling inflation and exacerbating the global cost of living crisis.  Additionally, supply disruptions could disproportionately affect developing nations and regions heavily dependent on energy imports, making targeted energy security support to Ukraine and other vulnerable importers vital.

Vulnerability of Energy Infrastructure

The attacks on Ukraine highlight the vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure worldwide, as the country prepares for winter under persistent threats. The potential for other state or non-state actors to use similar tactics raises concerns about security and long-term stability in the global energy sector.

Strengthening Resilience

Experts emphasize the urgent need for global cooperation in strengthening the resilience of energy infrastructure. Investments in cybersecurity, diverse energy sources, and decentralized grids are crucial for mitigating the risks of future attacks, with some arguing that stepping away from fossil fuels would improve US energy security over time. International cooperation will be key in identifying vulnerable areas and providing aid to nations whose infrastructure is under threat.

The Unpredictable Future of Energy

The "energy war" unleashed by Russia has injected a new level of uncertainty into the global energy market. In addition to short-term price fluctuations and supply issues, the conflict could accelerate the long-term transition towards renewable energy sources and reshape how nations approach energy security.

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