China^^s nuclear fuel reprocessing technology set for 2021

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Global Decarbonization Strategies align renewable energy, electrification, clean air policies, IMO sulfur cap, LNG fuels, and the EU 2050 roadmap to cut carbon intensity and meet Paris Agreement targets via EVs and efficiency.

Key Points

Frameworks that cut emissions via renewables, EVs, efficiency, cleaner marine fuels, and EU policy roadmaps.

✅ Renewables scale as wind and solar outcompete new coal and gas.

✅ Electrification of transport grows as EV costs fall and charging expands.

✅ IMO 2020 sulfur cap and LNG shift cut shipping emissions and particulates.

Are we doing enough to save the planet? Silly question. The latest prognosis from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made for gloomy reading. Fundamental to the Paris Agreement is the target of keeping global average temperatures from rising beyond 2°C. The UN argues that radical measures are needed, and investment incentives for clean electricity are seen as critical by many leaders to accelerate progress to meet that target.

Renewable power and electrification of transport are the pillars of decarbonization. It’s well underway in renewables - the collapse in costs make wind and solar generation competitive with new build coal and gas.

Renewables’ share of the global power market will triple by 2040 from its current level of 6% according to our forecasts.

The consumption side is slower, awaiting technological breakthrough and informed by efforts in countries such as New Zealand’s electricity transition to replace fossil fuels with electricity. The lower battery costs needed for electric vehicles (EVs) to compete head on and displace internal combustion engine (ICE)  cars are some years away. These forces only start to have a significant impact on global carbon intensity in the 2030s. Our forecasts fall well short of the 2°C target, as does the IEA’s base case scenario.

Yet we can’t just wait for new technology to come to the rescue. There are encouraging signs that society sees the need to deal with a deteriorating environment. Three areas of focus came out in discussion during Wood Mackenzie’s London Energy Forum - unrelated, different in scope and scale, each pointing the way forward.

First, clean air in cities.  China has shown how to clean up a local environment quickly. The government reacted to poor air quality in Beijing and other major cities by closing older coal power plants and forcing energy intensive industry and the residential sector to shift away from coal. The country’s return on investment will include a substantial future health care dividend.

European cities are introducing restrictions on diesel cars to improve air quality. London’s 2017 “toxicity charge” is a precursor of an Ultra-Low Emission Zone in 2019, and aligns with UK net-zero policy changes that affect transport planning, to be extended across much of the city by 2020. Paris wants to ban diesel cars from the city centre by 2025 and ICE vehicles by 2030. Barcelona, Madrid, Hamburg and Stuttgart are hatching similar plans.

College Promise In California: Community-Wide Efforts To Support Student Success

Second, desulphurisation of global shipping. High sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) meets around 3.5 million barrels per day (b/d) of the total marine market of 5 million b/d. A maximum of 3.5% sulphur content is allowed currently. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) implements a 0.5% limit on all shipping in 2020, dramatically reducing the release of sulphur oxides into the atmosphere.

Some ships will switch to very low sulphur fuel oil, of which only around 1.4 million b/d will be available in 2020. Others will have to choose between investing in scrubbers or buying premium-priced low sulphur marine gas oil.

Longer-term, lower carbon-intensity gas is a winner as liquefied natural gas becomes fuel of choice for many newbuilds. Marine LNG demand climbs from near zero to 50 million tonnes per annum (tpa) by 2040 on our forecasts, behind only China, India and Japan as a demand centre. LNG will displace over 1 million b/d of oil demand in shipping by 2040.

Third, Europe’s radical decarbonisation plans. Already in the vanguard of emissions reductions policy, the European Commission is proposing to reduce carbon emissions for new cars and vans by 30% by 2030 versus 2020. The targets come with incentives for car manufacturers linked to the uptake of EVs.

The 2050 roadmap, presently at the concept stage, envisages a far more demanding regime, with EU electricity plans for 2050 implying a much larger power system. The mooted 80% reduction in emissions compared with 1990 will embrace all sectors. Power and transport are already moving in this direction, but the legacy fuel mix in many other sectors will be disrupted, too.

Near zero-energy buildings and homes might be possible with energy efficiency improvements, renewables and heat pumps. Electrification, recycling and bioenergy could reduce fossil fuel use in energy intensive sectors like steel and aluminium, and Europe’s oil majors going electric illustrates how incumbents are adapting. Some sectors will cite the risk decarbonisation poses to Europe’s global competitiveness. If change is to come, industry will need to build new partnerships with society to meet these targets.

The 2050 roadmap signals the ambition and will be game changing for Europe if it is adopted. It would provide a template for a global roll out that would go a long way toward meeting UN’s concerns.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Egypt-Saudi Electricity Interconnection enables cross-border power trading, 3,000 MW capacity, and peak-demand balancing across the Middle East, boosting grid stability, reliability, and energy security through an advanced electricity network, interconnector infrastructure, and GCC grid integration.

Key Points

A 3,000 MW grid link letting Egypt and Saudi Arabia trade power, balance peak demand, and boost regional reliability.

✅ $1.6B project; Egypt invests ~$600M; 2-year construction timeline

✅ 3,000 MW capacity; peak-load shifting; cross-border reliability

✅ Links GCC grid; complements Jordan and Libya interconnectors

Egypt will connect its electricity network to Saudi Arabia, joining a system in the Middle East that has allowed neighbors to share power, similar to the Scotland-England subsea project that will bring renewable power south.

The link will cost about $1.6 billion, with Egypt paying about $600 million, Egypt’s Electricity Minister Mohamed Shaker said Monday at a conference in Cairo, as the country pursues a smart grid transformation to modernize its network. Contracts to build the network will be signed in March or April, and construction is expected to take about two years, he said. In times of surplus, Egypt can export electricity and then import power during shortages.

"It will enable us to benefit from the difference in peak consumption,” Shaker said. “The reliability of the network will also increase.”

Transmissions of electricity across borders in the Gulf became possible in 2009, when a power grid connected Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, a dynamic also seen when Ukraine joined Europe's grid under emergency conditions. The aim of the grid is to ensure that member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council can import power in an emergency. Egypt, which is not in the GCC, may have been able to avert an electricity shortage it suffered in 2014 if the link with Saudi Arabia existed at the time, Shaker said.

The link with Saudi Arabia should have a capacity of 3,000 megawatts, he said. Egypt has a 450-megawatt link with Jordan and one with Libya at 200 megawatts, the minister said. Egypt will seek to use its strategic location to connect power grids in Asia, where the Philippines power grid efforts are raising standards, and elsewhere in Africa, he said.

In 2009, a power grid linked Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, allowing the GCC states to transmit electricity across borders, much like proposals for a western Canadian grid that aim to improve regional reliability. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Muskrat Falls financial impact highlights a hydro megaproject's cost overruns, rate mitigation challenges, and inquiry findings in Newfoundland and Labrador, with power exports, Churchill River generation, and subsea cables shaping long-term viability.

Key Points

It refers to the project's burden on provincial finances, driven by cost overruns, rate hikes, and debt risks.

✅ Costs rose to $12.7B from $6.2B; inquiry cites suppressed risks.

✅ Rate mitigation needed to offset power bill shocks.

✅ Exports via subsea cables may improve long-term viability.

Newfoundland and Labrador's premier says the Muskrat Falls hydro megaproject is currently too much of a massive financial burden for him to be optimistic about its long-term potential.

"I am probably one of the most optimistic people in this room," Liberal Premier Dwight Ball told the inquiry into the project's runaway cost and scheduling issues, echoing challenges at Manitoba Hydro that have raised similar concerns.

"I believe the future is optimistic for Newfoundland Labrador, of course I do. But I'm not going to sit here today and say we have an optimistic future because of the Muskrat Falls project."

Ball, who was re-elected on May 16, has been critical of the project since he was opposition leader around the time it was sanctioned by the former Tory government.

He said Friday that despite his criticism of the Labrador dam, which has seen costs essentially double to more than $12.7 billion, he didn't set out to celebrate a failed project.

He said he still wants to see Muskrat Falls succeed someday through power sales outside the province, but there are immediate challenges -- including mitigating power-rate hikes once the dam starts providing full power and addressing winter reliability risks for households.

"We were told the project would be $6.2 billion, we're at $12.7 (billion). We were never told this project would be nearly 30 per cent of the net debt of this province just six, seven years later," the premier said.

"I wanted this to be successful, and in the long term I still want it to be successful. But we have to deal with the next 10 years."

The nearly complete dam will harness Labrador's lower Churchill River to provide electricity to the province as well as Nova Scotia and potentially beyond through subsea cables, while the legacy of Churchill Falls continues to shape regional power arrangements.

Ball's testimony wraps up a crucial phase of hearings in the extensive public inquiry.

The inquiry has heard from dozens of witnesses, with current and former politicians, bureaucrats, executives and consultants, amid debates over Quebec's electricity ambitions in the region, shedding long-demanded light on what went on behind closed doors that made the project go sideways.

Some witnesses have suggested that estimates were intentionally suppressed, and many high-ranking officials, including former premiers, have denied seeing key information about risk.

On Thursday, Ball testified to his shock when he began to understand the true financial state of the project after he was elected premier in 2015.

On Friday, Ball said he has more faith in future of the offshore oil and gas industry, and emerging options like small nuclear reactors, for example, than a mismanaged project that has put immense pressure on residents already struggling to make ends meet.

After his testimony, Ball said he takes some responsibility for a missed opportunity to mitigate methylmercury risks downstream from the dam through capping the reservoir, in parallel with debates over biomass power in electricity generation, something he had committed to doing before it is fully flooded this summer.

Still to come is a third phase of hearings on future best practices for issues like managing large-scale projects and independent electricity planning, two public feedback sessions and closing submissions from lawyers.

The final report from the inquiry is due before Dec. 31.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Utility Battery Storage Rankings measure grid-connected capacity, not ownership, highlighting MW, MWh, and watts per customer across PJM, MISO, and California IOUs, featuring Duke Energy, IPL, ancillary services, and frequency regulation benefits.

Key Points

Rankings that track energy storage connected to utility grids, comparing MW, MWh, and W/customer rather than ownership.

✅ Ranks by MW, MWh, and watts per customer, not asset ownership

✅ Highlights PJM, MISO cases and California IOUs' deployments

✅ Examples: Duke Energy, IPL, IID; ancillary services, frequency response

The rankings do not tally how much energy storage a utility built or owns, but how much was connected to their system. So while IPL built and owns the storage facility in its territory, Duke does not own the 16 MW of storage that connected to its system in 2016. Similarly, while California’s utilities are permitted to own some energy storage assets, they do not necessarily own all the storage facilities connected to their systems.

Measured by energy (MWh), IPL ranked fourth with 20 MWh, and Duke Energy Ohio ranked eighth with 6.1 MWh.

Ranked by energy storage watts per customer, IPL and Duke actually beat the California utilities, ranking fifth and sixth with 42 W/customer and 23 W/customer, respectively.

Duke ready for next step

Given Duke’s plans, including projects in Florida that are moving ahead, the utility is likely to stay high in the rankings and be more of a driving force in development. “Battery technology has matured, and we are ready to take the next step,” Duke spokesman Randy Wheeless told Utility Dive. “We can go to regulators and say this makes economic sense.”

Duke began exploring energy storage in 2012, and until now most of its energy storage efforts were focused on commercial projects in competitive markets where it was possible to earn revenues. Those included its 36 MW Notrees battery storage project developed in partnership with the Department of Energy in 2012 that provides frequency regulation for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas market and two 2 MW storage projects at its retired W.C. Beckjord plant in New Richmond, Ohio, that sells ancillary services into the PJM Interconnection market.

On the regulated side, most of Duke’s storage projects have had “an R&D slant to them,” Wheeless said, but “we are moving beyond the R&D concept in our regulated territory and are looking at storage more as a regulated asset.”

“We have done the demos, and they have proved out,” Wheeless said. Storage may not be ready for prime time everywhere, he said, but in certain locations, especially where it can it can be used to do more than one thing, it can make sense.

Wheeless said Duke would be making “a number of energy storage announcements in the next few months in our regulated states.” He could not provide details on those projects.

More flexible resources
Location can be a determining factor when building a storage facility. For IPL, serving the wholesale market was a driving factor in the rationale to build its 20 MW, 20 MWh storage facility in Indianapolis.

IPL built the project to address a need for more flexible resources in light of “recent changes in our resource mix,” including decreasing coal-fired generation and increasing renewables and natural gas-fired generation, as other regions plan to rely on battery storage to meet rising demand, Joan Soller, IPL’s director of resource planning, told Utility Dive in an email. The storage facility is used to provide primary frequency response necessary for grid stability.

The Harding Street storage facility in May. It was the first energy storage project in the Midcontinent ISO. But the regulatory path in MISO is not as clear as it is in PJM, whereas initiatives such as Ontario storage framework are clarifying participation. In November, IPL with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, asking the regulator to find that MISO’s rules for energy storage are deficient and should be revised.

Soller said IPL has “no imminent plans to install energy storage in the future but will continue to monitor battery costs and capabilities as potential resources in future Integrated Resource Plans.”

California legislative and regulatory push

In California, energy storage did not have to wait for regulations to catch up with technology. With legislative and regulatory mandates, including CEC long-duration storage funding announced recently, as a push, California’s IOUs took high places in SEPA’s rankings.

Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric were first and fourth (63.2 MW and 17.2 MW), respectively, in terms of capacity. SoCal Ed and SDG&E were first and second (104 MWh and 28.4 MWh), respectively, and Pacific Gas and Electric was fifth (17 MWh) in terms of energy.

But a public power utility, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), ended up high in the rankings – second in capacity (30 MW) and third  in energy (20 MWh) – even though as a public power entity it is not subject to the state’s energy storage mandates.

But while IID was not under state mandate, it had a compelling regulatory reason to build the storage project. It was part of a settlement reached with FERC over a September 2011 outage, IID spokeswoman Marion Champion said.

IID agreed to a $12 million fine as part of the settlement, of which $9 million was applied to physical improvements of IID’s system.

IID ended up building a 30 MW, 20 MWh lithium-ion battery storage system at its El Centro generating station. The system went into service in October 2016 and in May, IID used the system’s 44 MW combined-cycle natural gas turbine at the generating station.

Passing savings to customers
The cost of the storage system was about $31 million, and based on its experience with the El Centro project, Champion said IID plans to add to the existing batteries. “We are continuing to see real savings and are passing those savings on to our customers,” she said.

Champion said the battery system gives IID the ability to provide ancillary services without having to run its larger generation units, such as El Centro Unit 4, at its minimum output. With gas prices at $3.59 per million British thermal units, it costs about $26,880 a day to run Unit 4, she said.

IID’s territory is in southeastern California, an area with a lot of renewable resources. IID is also not part of the California ISO and acts as its own balancing authority. The battery system gives the utility greater operational flexibility, in addition to the ability to use more of the surrounding renewable resources, Champion said.

In May, IID’s board gave the utility’s staff approval to enter into contract negotiations for a 7 MW, 4 MWh expansion of its El Centro storage facility. The negotiations are ongoing, but approval could come in the next couple months, Champion said.

The heart of the issue, though, is “the ability of the battery system to lower costs for our ratepayers,” Champion said. “Our planning section will continue to utilize the battery, and we are looking forward to its expansion,” she said.” I expect it will play an even more important role as we continue to increase our percentage of renewables.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News