India sets year-end deadline for blueprint on tackling global warming

Iran Bushehr Earthquake rattles southern province near the Bushehr nuclear power plant, USGS reports M5.1 at 38 km depth; seismic activity along major fault lines raises safety, damage, and monitoring concerns.

Key Points

A magnitude 5.1 quake near Bushehr nuclear plant at 38 km depth, with no damage reported, per USGS.

✅ USGS lists magnitude 5.1 at 38 km depth

✅ Near Bushehr nuclear power plant; built for stronger quakes

✅ Iran lies on major fault lines; quake risk is frequent

A magnitude 5 earthquake struck southern Iran early Friday near the Islamic Republic's only nuclear power plant. There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries as Iran continues combined-cycle conversions across its power sector.

The quake hit Iran's Bushehr province at 5:23 a.m., according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It put the magnitude at 5.1 and the depth of the earthquake at 38 kilometres (24 miles), in a province tied to efforts to transmit electricity to Europe in coming years.

Iranian state media did not immediately report on the quake. However, the Bushehr nuclear power plant was designed to withstand much stronger earthquakes, a notable consideration as Iraq plans nuclear power plants to address shortages.

A magnitude 5 earthquake can cause considerable damage, including power disruptions that have seen blackouts spark protests in some Iranian cities.

Iran sits on major fault lines and is prone to near-daily earthquakes, yet it remains a key player in regional power, with Iran-Iraq energy cooperation ongoing. In 2003, a 6.6-magnitude quake flattened the historic city of Bam, killing 26,000 people, and today Iran supplies 40% of Iraq's electricity through cross-border power deals. Bam is near the Bushehr nuclear plant, which wasn’t damaged at that time, while more recently Iran finalized deals to rehabilitate Iraq's power grid to improve resilience.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Power Sector Outlook 2022 previews clean energy targets, grid reliability and resilience upgrades, transmission expansion, renewable integration, EV charging networks, and decarbonization policies shaping utilities, markets, and climate strategies amid extreme weather risks.

Key Points

An outlook on clean energy goals, grid resilience, transmission, and EV infrastructure shaping U.S. decarbonization.

✅ States set 100% clean power targets; equity plans deepen.

✅ Grid reforms, transmission builds, and RTO debates intensify.

✅ EV plants, batteries, and charging corridors accelerate.

As sweeping climate legislation stalled in Congress this year, states and utilities were busy aiming to reshape the future of electricity.

States expanded clean energy goals and developed blueprints on how to reach them. Electric vehicles got a boost from new battery charging and factory plans.

The U.S. power sector also is sorting through billions of dollars of damage that will be paid for by customers over time. States coped with everything from blackouts during a winter storm to heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires and tornadoes. The barrage has added urgency to a push for increased grid reliability and resilience, especially as the power generation mix evolves, EV grid challenges grow as electricity is used to power cars and the climate changes.

“The magnitude of our inability to serve with these sort of discontinuous jumps in heat or cold or threats like wildfires and flooding has made it really clear that we can’t take the grid for granted anymore — and that we need to do something,” said Alison Silverstein, a Texas-based energy consultant.

Many of the announcements in 2021 could see further developments next year as legislatures, utilities and regulators flesh out details on everything from renewable projects to ways to make the grid more resilient.

On the policy front, the patchwork of state renewable energy and carbon reduction goals stands out considering Congress’ failure so far to advance a key piece of President Biden’s agenda — the "Build Back Better Act," which proposed about $550 billion for climate action. Criticism from fellow Democrats has rained on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) since he announced his opposition this month to that legislation (E&E Daily, Dec. 21).

The Biden administration has taken some steps to advance its priorities as it looks to decarbonize the U.S. power sector by 2035. That includes promoting electric vehicles, which are part of a goal to make the United States have net-zero emissions economywide no later than 2050. The administration has called for a national network of 500,000 EV charging stations as the American EV boom raises power-supply questions, and mandated the government begin buying only EVs by 2035.

Still, the fate of federal legislation and spending is uncertain. States and utility plans are considered a critical factor in whether Biden’s targets come to fruition. Silverstein also stressed the importance of regional cooperation as policymakers examine the grid and challenges ahead.

“Our comfort as individuals and as households and as an economy depends on the grid staying up,” Silverstein said, “and that’s no longer a given.”

Here are three areas of the electricity sector that saw changes in 2021, and could see significant developments next year:

1. Clean energy
The list of states with new or revamped clean energy goals expanded again in 2021, with Oregon and Illinois joining the ranks requiring 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 2040 and 2050, respectively.

Washington state passed a cap-and-trade bill. Massachusetts and Rhode Island adopted 2050 net-zero goals.

North Carolina adopted a law requiring a 70 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and establishing a midcentury net-zero goal.

Nebraska didn’t adopt a statewide policy, but its three public power districts voted separately to approve clean energy goals, actions that will collectively have the same effect. Even the governor of fossil-fuel-heavy North Dakota, during an oil conference speech, declared a goal of making the state carbon-neutral by the end of the decade.

These and other states join hundreds of local governments, big energy users and utilities, which were also busy establishing and reworking renewable energy and climate goals this year in response to public and investor pressure.

However, many of the details on how states will reach those targets are still to be determined, including factors such as how much natural gas will remain online and how many renewable projects will connect to the grid.

Decisions on clean energy that could be made in 2022 include a key one in Arizona, which has seen support rise and fall over the years for a proposal to lead to 100 percent clean power for regulated electric utilities. The Arizona Corporation Commission could discuss the matter in January, though final approval of the plan is not a sure thing. Eyes also are on California, where a much bigger grid for EVs will be needed, as it ponders a recent proposal on rooftop solar that has supporters of renewables worried about added costs that could hamper the industry.

In the wake of the major energy bill North Carolina passed in 2021, observers are waiting for Duke Energy Corp.’s filing of its carbon-reduction plan with state utility regulators. That plan will help determine the future electricity mix in the state.

Warren Leon, executive director of the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), said that without federal action, state goals are “going to be more difficult to achieve.”

State and federal policies are complementary, not substitutes, he said. And Washington can provide a tailwind and help states achieve their goals more quickly and easily.

“Progress is going to be most rapid if both the states and the federal government are moving in the same direction, but either of them operating independently of the others can still make a difference,” he said.

While emissions reductions and renewable energy goals were centerpieces of the state energy and climate policies adopted this year, there were some other common threads that could continue in 2022.

One that’s gone largely unnoticed is that an increasing number of states went beyond just setting targets for clean energy and have developed plans, or road maps, for how to meet their goals, Leon said.

Like the New Year resolutions that millions of Americans are planning — pledges to eat healthier or exercise more — it’s far easier to set ambitious goals than to achieve them.

According to CESA, California, Colorado, Nevada, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Washington state all established plans for how to achieve their clean energy goals. Prior to late 2020, only two states — New York and New Jersey — had done so.

Another trend in state energy and climate policies: Equity and energy justice provisions factored heavily in new laws in places such as Maine, Illinois and Oregon.

Equity isn’t a new concern for states, Leon said. But state plans have become more detailed in terms of their response to ways the energy transition may affect vulnerable populations.

“They’re putting much more concrete actions in place,” he said. “And they are really figuring out how they go about electricity system planning to make sure there are new voices at the table, that the processes are different, and there are things that are going to be measured to determine whether they’re actually making progress toward equity.”

2. Grid
Climate change and natural disasters have been a growing worry for grid planners, and 2021 was a year the issue affected many Americans directly.

Texas’ main power grid suffered massive outages during a deadly February winter storm, and it wasn’t far from an uncontrolled blackout that could have required weeks or months of recovery.

Consumers elsewhere in the country watched as millions of Texans lost grid power and heat amid a bitter cold snap. Other parts of the central United States saw more limited power outages in February.

“I think people care about the grid a lot more this year than they did last year,” Silverstein said, adding, “All of a sudden people are realizing that electricity’s not as easy as they’ve assumed it was and … that we need to invest more.”

Many of the challenges are not specific to one state, she added.

“It seems to me that the state regulators need to put a lot — and utilities need to put a lot — more commitment into working together to solve broad regional problems in cooperative regional ways,” Silverstein said.

In 2022, multiple decisions could affect the grid, including state oversight of spending on upgrades and market proposals that could sway the amount of clean energy brought online.

A focal point will be Texas, where state regulators are examining further changes to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’ market design. That could have major implications for how renewables develop in the state. Leaders in other parts of the country will likely keep tabs on adjustments in Texas as they ponder their own changes.

Texas has already embarked on reforms to help improve the power sector and its coordination with the natural gas system, which is critical to keeping plants running. But its primary power grid, operated by ERCOT, remains largely isolated and hasn’t been able to rule out power shortages this winter if there are extreme conditions (Energywire, Nov. 22).

Transmission also remains a key issue outside of the Lone Star State, both for resilience and to connect new wind and solar farms. In many areas of the country, the job of planning these new regional lines and figuring out how to allocate billions of dollars in costs falls to regional grid operators (Energywire, Dec. 13).

In the central U.S., the issue led to tension between states in the Midwest and the Gulf South (Energywire, Oct. 15).

In the Northeast, a Maine environmental commissioner last month suspended a permit for a major transmission project that could send hydropower to the region from Canada (Greenwire, Nov. 24). The project’s developers are now battling the state in court to force construction of the line — a process that could be resolved in 2022 — after Mainers signaled opposition in a November vote.

Advocates of a regional transmission organization for Western states, meanwhile, hope to keep building momentum even as critics question the cost savings promoted by supporters of organized markets. Among those in existing markets, states such as Louisiana are expected to monitor the costs and benefits of being associated with the Midcontinent Independent System Operator.

In other states, more details are expected to emerge in 2022 about plans announced this year.

In California, where policymakers are also exploring EVs for grid stability alongside wildfire prevention, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. announced a plan over the summer to spend billions of dollars to underground some 10,000 miles of power lines to help prevent wildfires, for example (Greenwire, July 22).

Several Southeastern utilities, including Dominion Energy Inc., Duke Energy, Southern Co. and the Tennessee Valley Authority, won FERC approval to create a new grid plan — the Southeast Energy Exchange Market, or SEEM — that they say will boost renewable energy.

SEEM is an electricity trading platform that will facilitate trading close to the times when the power is used. The new market is slated to include two time zones, which would allow excess renewables such as solar and wind to be funneled to other parts of the country to be used during peak demand times.

SEEM is significant because the Southeast does not have an organized market structure like other parts of the country, although some utilities such as Dominion and Duke do have some operations in the region managed by PJM Interconnection LLC, the largest U.S. regional grid operator.

SEEM is not a regional transmission organization (RTO) or energy imbalance market. Critics argue that because it doesn’t include a traditional independent monitor, SEEM lacks safeguards against actions that could manipulate energy prices.

Others have said the electric companies that formed SEEM did so to stave off pressure to develop an RTO. Some of the regulated electric companies involved in the new market have denied that claim.

3. Electric vehicles
With electric vehicles, the Midwest and Southeast gained momentum in 2021 as hubs for electrifying the transportation sector, as EVs hit an inflection point in mainstream adoption, and the Biden administration simultaneously worked to boost infrastructure to help get more EVs on the road.

From battery makers to EV startups to major auto manufacturers, companies along the entire EV supply chain spectrum moved to or expanded in those two regions, solidifying their footprint in the fast-growing sector.

A wave of industry announcements capped off in December with California-based Rivian Automotive Inc. declaring it would build a $5 billion electric truck, SUV and van factory in Georgia. Toyota Motor Corp. picked North Carolina for its first U.S.-based battery plant. General Motors Co. and a partner plan to build a $2.5 billion battery plant in GM’s home state of Michigan. And Proterra Inc. has unveiled plans to build a new battery factory in South Carolina.

Advocates hope the EV shift by automakers in the Midwest and Southeast will widen the options for customers. Automakers and startups also have been targeting states with zero-emission vehicle targets to launch new and more models because there’s an inherent demand for them.

“The states that have adopted those standards are getting more vehicles,” said Anne Blair, senior EV policy manager for the Electrification Coalition.

EV advocates say they hope those policies could help bring products like Ford’s electrified signature truck line on the road and into rural areas. Ford also is partnering with Korean partner SK Innovation Co. Ltd. to build two massive battery plants in Kentucky.

Regardless of the fanfare about new vehicles, more jobs and must-needed economic growth, barriers to EV adoption remain. Many states have tacked on annual fees, which some elected officials argue are needed to replace revenues secured from a gasoline tax.

Other states do not allow automakers to sell directly to consumers, preventing companies like Lordstown Motors Corp. and Rivian to effectively do business there.

“It’s about consumer choice and consumers having the capacity to buy the vehicles that they want and that are coming out, in new and innovative ways,” Blair told E&E News. Blair said direct sales also will help boost EV sales at traditional dealerships.

In 2022, advocates will be closely watching progress with the National Electric Highway Coalition, amid tensions over charging control among utilities and networks, which was formed by more than 50 U.S. power companies to build a coast-to-coast fast-charging network for EVs along major U.S. travel corridors by the end of 2023 (Energywire, Dec. 7).

A number of states also will be holding legislative sessions, and they could include new efforts to promote EVs — or change benefits that currently go to owners of alternative vehicles.

EV advocates will be pushing for lawmakers to remove barriers that they argue are preventing customers from buying alternative vehicles.

Conversations already have begun in Georgia to let startup EV makers sell their cars and trucks directly to consumers. In Florida, lawmakers will try again to start a framework that will create a network of charging stations as charging networks jostle for position under federal electrification efforts, as well as add annual fees to alternative vehicles to ease concerns over lost gasoline tax revenue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Kentucky Coal Wage Protection Bill strengthens performance bond enforcement, links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet notifications, addresses Blackjewel bankruptcy fallout, safeguards unpaid miners, ties mining permits to payroll bonds, penalizes violators via revocations.

Key Points

A Kentucky plan to enforce wage bonds and revoke mining permits to protect miners after bankruptcies.

✅ Requires wage bonds for firms under 5 years

✅ Links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet

✅ Violators face permit revocation in 90 days

Following the high-profile bankruptcy of a coal company that left hundreds of Kentucky miners with bad checks last month, Sen. Johnny Ray Turner (D-Prestonsburg) said he will pre-file a bill Thursday aimed at closing a loophole that allowed the company to operate in violation of state law.

The bill would also compel state agencies to determine whether other companies are currently in violation of the law, and could revoke mining permits if the companies don't comply.

Turner's bill would amend an already-existing law that requires coal and construction companies that have been operating in Kentucky for less than five years to post a performance bond to protect wages if the companies cease their operations.

Blackjewel LLC., which employed hundreds of miners in Eastern Kentucky, failed to post that bond. When it shut its mines down and filed for bankruptcy last month, it left hundreds of miners without payment for 3 weeks and one day of work.

The bond issue has sparked criticism from various state officials, including Attorney General Andy Beshear, who said Tuesday that he would investigate whether other companies are currently in violation, similar to an external investigation of utility workers in another jurisdiction.

Blackjewel issued cold checks to its employees June 28, and when the checks bounced days later, many employees were left with bank accounts overdrawn by more than $1,000. The bankruptcy left many miners and their families with concerns over upcoming bill and mortgage payments, and, as unpaid days off at utilities elsewhere show, the strain on workers can be severe, and fostered a ongoing protest that blocked a train hauling coal from one of the company's Harlan County mines.

Blackjewel had been operating in Kentucky for about two years before it filed for bankruptcy, so it should have paid the performance bond, according to state law.

David A. Dickerson, the Kentucky Labor Cabinet Secretary, said the law as it's currently written does not set up any mechanism that notifies the cabinet, or provides comparable public reporting at large utility projects elsewhere, when a company opens in Kentucky that is supposed to pay the bond.

That allowed Blackjewel to operate for two years without any protection for workers before it closed its mines. Had the company posted the bond according to state law, miners likely would have been paid for the work they had already completed, officials said.

The law requires companies to set aside enough money to cover payroll for four weeks.

Turner's bill would compel the state Energy and Environment Cabinet to notify the Labor Cabinet's Department of Workplace Standards of any application for a mining permit from a company that has been doing business in Kentucky for less than five years.

It also compels the EEC to notify the Labor Cabinet of any companies that already have permits that are subject to the bond.

"It should have already been that way, but I'm happy so our children don't have to go through this," said Jeff Willig, a former Blackjewel miner who helped launch the protest at the railroad.

Willig said he and other miners will continue to block the tracks until they receive payment for their past work.

Any company currently operating in violation of the law would have 90 days to become compliant before its mining permits are revoked. New companies that are applying for permits will be required post the bond before permits are issued.

"Hopefully it will take care of the loopholes that had been exploited by Blackjewel," Turner said.

The bill will be taken up by the legislature when it returns to session in January. It would also cover attorneys' fees if workers are forced to sue their employer to cover wages, underscoring broader worker safety concerns during health emergencies.

Turner said he has reached out to Republican leadership in the Senate, and expects the bill to have bipartisan support come January.

Turner announced the legislation at a press conference in Harlan, the county with the highest population of Blackjewel employees affected by the bankruptcy, and as prolonged utility outages after tornadoes have strained other Kentucky communities.

State rep. Angie Hatton (D-Whitesburg) was also in attendance, along with rep. Chris Fugate (R-Chavies) and state Sen. Morgan McGarvey (D-Louisville).

Hatton said the bankruptcy has had serious economic impact throughout Eastern Kentucky, including in Letcher County, which is home to more than 130 former Blackjewel workers.

"This is something that has done a lot of damage to Eastern Kentucky," Hatton said.

Hatton plans to file the same bill in the state House of Representatives.

Fugate commended community members in Harlan County and elsewhere who have banded together in support of the miners by donating children's clothing, school supplies, food and other goods, while other regions have created a coal transition fund to help displaced workers.

Mosley called the bankruptcy "totally unprecedented" and said the current performance bond law, which has been on-the-books since 1986, lacked the enforcement necessary to protect miners in bankruptcies like Blackjewel's, even as a workplace safety fine in another case shows regulatory consequences in other industries.

"There was a law, there wasn't good enough process," Mosley said.

Blackjewel received court approval to sell many of its mines last month, including many in Kentucky, to Kopper Glo Mining, LLC.

As part of the sale agreement, Kopper Glo said it would pay $450,000 to cover the past wages of Blackjewel miners, and collect a per ton fee accumulating up to $550,000 that it will also contribute to pay back wages.

That total $1 million is less than half of all back wages owed to Blackjewel miners, but attorneys who filed a class action suit against the company said miners have a priority lien on the purchase price. That could allow former Blackjewel employees to make good on their back wages as bankruptcy proceedings continue.

Mosley said he spoke with a Kopper Glo official Thursday, who said the company is working to re-open the mines as quickly as possible. The official did not give an exact timeline.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

European Energy Market Crisis drives record natural gas and electricity prices across the EU, as LNG supply constraints, Russian pipeline dependence, marginal pricing, and renewables integration expose volatility in liberalised power markets.

Key Points

A 2021 surge in European gas and electricity prices from supply strains, demand rebounds, and marginal pricing exposure.

✅ Record TTF gas and day-ahead power prices across Europe

✅ LNG constraints and Russian pipeline dependence tightened supply

✅ Debate over marginal pricing vs regulated models intensifies

By Ronan Bolton

The year 2021 was a turbulent one for energy markets across Europe, as Europe's energy nightmare deepened across the region. Skyrocketing natural gas prices have created a sense of crisis and will lead to cost-of-living problems for many households, as wholesale costs feed through into retail prices for gas and electricity over the coming months.

This has created immediate challenges for governments, but it should also encourage us to rethink the fundamental design of our energy markets as we seek to transition to net zero, with many viewing it as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the bloc.

This energy crisis was driven by a combination of factors: the relaxation of Covid-19 lockdowns across Europe created a surge in demand, while cold weather early in the year diminished storage levels and contributed to increasing demand from Asian economies. A number of technical issues and supply-side constraints also combined to limit imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the continent.

Europe’s reliance on pipeline imports from Russia has once again been called into question, as Gazprom has refused to ride to the rescue, only fulfilling its pre-existing contracts. The combination of these, and other, factors resulted in record prices – the European benchmark price (the Dutch TTF Gas Futures Contract) reached almost €180/MWh on 21 December, with average day-ahead electricity prices exceeding €300/MWh across much of the continent in the following days.

Countries which rely heavily on natural gas as a source of electricity generation have been particularly exposed, with governments quickly put under pressure to intervene in the market.

In Spain the government and large energy companies have clashed over a proposed windfall tax on power producers. In Ireland, where wind and gas meet much of the country’s surging electricity demand, the government is proposing a €100 rebate for all domestic energy consumers in early 2022; while the UK government is currently negotiating a sector-wide bailout of the energy supply sector and considering ending the gas-electricity price link to curb bills.

This follows the collapse of a number of suppliers who had based their business models on attracting customers with low prices by buying cheap on the spot market. The rising wholesale prices, combined with the retail price cap previously introduced by the Theresa May government, led to their collapse.

While individual governments have little control over prices in an increasingly globalised and interconnected natural gas market, they can exert influence over electricity prices as these markets remain largely national and strongly influenced by domestic policy and regulation. Arising from this, the intersection of gas and power markets has become a key site of contestation and comment about the role of government in mitigating the impacts on consumers of rising fuel bills, even as several EU states oppose major reforms amid the price spike.

Given that renewables are constituting an ever-greater share of production capacity, many are now questioning why gas prices play such a determining role in electricity markets.

As I outline in my forthcoming book, Making Energy Markets, a particular feature of the ‘European model’ of liberalised electricity trade since the 1990s has been a reliance on spot markets to improve the efficiency of electricity systems. The idea was that high marginal prices – often set by expensive-to-run gas peaking plants – would signal when capacity limits are reached, providing clear incentives to consumers to reduce or delay demand at these peak periods.

This, in theory, would lead to an overall more efficient system, and in the long run, if average prices exceeded the costs of entering the market, new investments would be made, thus pushing the more expensive and inefficient plants off the system.

The free-market model became established during a more stable era when domestically-sourced coal, along with gas purchased on long-term contracts from European sources (the North Sea and the Netherlands), constituted a much greater proportion of electricity generation.

While prices fluctuated, they were within a somewhat predictable range, and provided a stable benchmark for the long-term contracts underpinning investment decisions. This is no longer the case as energy markets become increasingly volatile and disrupted during the energy transition.

The idea that free price formation in a competitive market, with governments standing back, would benefit electricity consumers and lead to more efficient systems was rooted in sound economic theory, and is the basis on which other major commodity markets, such as metals and agricultural crops, have been organised for decades.

The free-market model applied to electricity had clear limitations, however, as the majority of domestic consumers have not been exposed directly to real-time price signals. While this is changing with the roll-out of smart meters in many countries, the extent to which the average consumer will be willing or able to reduce demand in a predicable way during peak periods remains uncertain.

Also, experience shows that governments often come under pressure to intervene in markets if prices rise sharply during periods of scarcity, thus undermining a basic tenet of the market model, with EU gas price cap strategies floated as one option.

Given that gas continues to play a crucial role in balancing supply and demand for electricity, the options available to governments are limited, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is harder than it appears for policymakers. One approach would be would be to keep faith with the liberalised market model, with limited interventions to help consumers in the short term, while ultimately relying on innovations in demand side technologies and alternatives to gas as a means of balancing systems with high shares of variable renewables.

An alternative scenario may see a return to old style national pricing policies, involving a move away from marginal pricing and spot markets, even as the EU prepares to revamp its electricity market in response. In the past, in particular during the post-WWII decades, and until markets were liberalised in the 1990s, governments have taken such an approach, centrally determining prices based on the costs of delivering long term system plans. The operation of gas plants and fuel procurement would become a much more regulated activity under such a model.

Many argue that this ‘traditional model’ better suits a world in which governments have committed to long-term decarbonisation targets, and zero marginal cost sources, such as wind and solar, play a more dominant role in markets and begin to push down prices.

A crucial question for energy policy makers is how to exploit this deflationary effect of renewables and pass-on cost savings to consumers, whilst ensuring that the lights stay on.

Despite the promise of storage technologies such as grid-scale batteries and hydrogen produced from electrolysis, aside from highly polluting coal, no alternative to internationally sourced natural gas as a means of balancing electricity systems and ensuring our energy security is immediately available.

This fact, above all else, will constrain the ambitions of governments to fundamentally transform energy markets.

Ronan Bolton is Reader at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh and Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre. His book Making Energy Markets: The Origins of Electricity Liberalisation in Europe is to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NEIMA advances NRC regulatory modernization, creating a licensing framework for advanced reactors, improving uranium permitting, capping reactor fees, and mandating DOE planning for excess uranium, boosting transparency, accountability, and innovation across the US nuclear sector.

Key Points

NEIMA is a US law modernizing NRC rules and enabling advanced reactor licensing while reforming fees.

✅ Modernizes NRC licensing for advanced reactors

✅ Caps annual reactor fees and boosts transparency

✅ Streamlines uranium permitting; directs DOE plans

Bipartisan legislation modernising US nuclear regulation and supporting the establishment of a licensing framework for next-generation advanced reactors has been signed by US President Donald Trump, whose order boosting U.S. uranium and nuclear energy underscored the administration's focus on the sector.

The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernisation Act (NEIMA) became law on 14 January.

As well as directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to modify the licensing process for commercial advanced nuclear reactor facilities, the bill establishes new transparency and accountability measures to the regulator's budget and fee programmes, and caps fees for existing reactors. It also directs the NRC to look at ways of improving the efficiency of uranium licensing, including investigating the safety and feasibility of extending uranium recovery licences from ten to 20 years' duration, and directs the Department of Energy, which oversees nuclear cleanup and related projects, to issue at least every ten years a long-term plan detailing the management of its excess uranium inventories.

Maria Korsnick, president and CEO of the US Nuclear Energy Institute, described NEIMA as a "significant, positive step" toward the reform of the NRC's fee collection process. "This legislation establishes a more equitable and transparent funding structure which will benefit all operating reactors and future licensees," she said. "The bill also reaffirms Congress’s support for nuclear innovation by working to establish an efficient and stable regulatory structure that is prepared to license the advanced reactors of the future."

Marilyn Kray, president-elect of the American Nuclear Society, said the passage of the legislation was a "big win" for the nation and its nuclear community. "By reforming outdated laws, NRC will now be able to invest more freely in advanced nuclear R&D and licensing activities. This in turn will accelerate deployment of cutting-edge American nuclear systems and better prepare the next generation of nuclear engineers and technologists," she said.

The bill was introduced in 2017 by Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. It was approved by Congress on 21 December by 361 votes to 10, having been passed by the Senate the previous day, even as later Biden's climate law developments produced mixed results.

NEIMA is one of several bipartisan bills that support advanced nuclear innovation considered by the 115th US Congress, which ended on 2 January. These are: the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA); the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act; the Nuclear Utilisation of Keynote Energy Act; the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Act, a focus sharpened by the U.S. ban on Russian uranium in the fuel market; and legislation to expedite so-called part 810 approvals, which are needed for the export of technology, equipment and components. NEICA, which supports the deployment of advanced reactors and also directs the DOE to develop a reactor-based fast neutron source for the testing of advanced reactor fuels and materials, was signed into law in October.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News