Canadian Hydro appoints new Chief Operating Officer

Atlantic Canada EV adoption lags, a new poll finds, as fewer buyers consider electric vehicles amid limited charging infrastructure, lower provincial rebates, and affordability pressures in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland compared to B.C. and Quebec.

Key Points

Atlantic Canada EV adoption reflects demand, shaped by rebates, charging access, costs, and the regional energy mix.

✅ Poll shows lowest purchase intent in Atlantic Canada

✅ Lack of rebates and charging slows EV consideration

✅ Income and energy mix affect affordability and benefits

Atlantic Canadians are the least likely to buy a car, truck or SUV in the next year and the most skittish about going electric, according to a new poll. 

Only 31 per cent of Nova Scotians are looking at buying a new or used vehicle before December 2021 rolls around. And just 13 per cent of Newfoundlanders who are planning to buy are considering an electric vehicle. Both those numbers are the lowest in the country. Still, 47 per cent of Nova Scotians considering buying in the next year are thinking about electric options, according to the numbers gathered online by Logit Group and analyzed by Halifax-based Narrative Research. That compares to 41 per cent of Canadians contemplating a vehicle purchase within the next year, with 54 per cent of them considering going electric. 

“There’s still a high level of interest,” said Margaret Chapman, chief operating officer at Narrative Research.  

“I think half of people who are thinking about buying a vehicle thinking about electric is pretty significant. But I think it’s a little lower in Atlantic Canada compared to other parts of the country probably because the infrastructure isn’t quite what it might be elsewhere. And I think also it’s the availability of vehicles as well. Maybe it just hasn’t quite caught on here to the extent that it might have in, say, Ontario or B.C., where the highest level of interest is.” 

Provincial rebates
Provincial rebates also serve to create more interest, she said, citing New Brunswick's rebate program as an example in the region. 

“There’s a $7,500 rebate on top of the $5,000 you get from the feds in B.C. But in Nova Scotia there’s no provincial rebate,” Chapman said. “So I think that kind of thing actually is significant in whether you’re interested in buying an electric vehicle or not.” 

The survey was conducted online Nov. 11–13 with 1,231 Canadian adults. 

Of the people across Canada who said they were not considering an electric vehicle purchase, 55 per cent said a provincial rebate would make them more likely to consider one, she said.  

In Nova Scotia, that number drops to 43 per cent. 

Nova Scotia families have the lowest median after-tax income in the country, according to numbers released earlier this year.  

The national median in 2018 was $61,400, according to Statistics Canada. Nova Scotia was at the bottom of the pack with $52,200, up from $51,400 in 2017. 

So big price tags on electric vehicles might put them out of reach for many Nova Scotians, and a recent cost-focused survey found similar concerns nationwide. 

“I think it’s probably that combination of cost and infrastructure,” Chapman said. 

“But you saw this week in the financial update from the federal government that they’re putting $150 million into new charging station, so were some of that cash to be spread in Atlantic Canada, I’m sure there would be an increase in interest … The more charging stations around you see, you think ‘Alright, it might not be so hard to ensure that I don’t run out of power for my car.’ All of that stuff I think will start to pick up. But right now it is a little bit lagging in Atlantic Canada, and in Labrador infrastructure still lags despite a government push in N.L. to expand EVs.” 

'Simple dollars and cents'
The lack of a provincial government rebate here for electric vehicles definitely factors into the equation, said Sean O’Regan, president and chief executive officer of O'Regan's Automotive Group.  

“Where you see the highest adoption are in the provinces where there are large government rebates,” he said. “It’s a simple dollars and cents (thing). In Quebec, when you combine the rebates it’s up to over $10,000, if not $12,000, towards the car. If you can get that kind of a rebate on a car, I don’t know that it would matter much what it was – it would help sell it.” 

A lot of people who want to buy electric cars are trying to make a conscious decision about the environment, O’Regan said. 

While Nova Scotia Power is moving towards renewable energy, he points out that much of our electricity still comes from burning coal and other fossil fuels, and N.L. lags in energy efficiency as the region works to improve.  

“So the power that you get is not necessarily the cleanest of power,” O’Regan said. “The green advantage is not the same (in Nova Scotia as it is in provinces that produce a lot of hydro power).” 

Compared to five years ago, the charging infrastructure here is a lot better, he said. But it doesn’t compare well to provinces including Quebec and B.C., though Newfoundland recently completed its first fast-charging network for electric car owners. 

“Certainly (with) electric cars – we're selling more and more and more of them,” O'Regan said, noting the per centage would be in the single digits of his overall sales. “But you're starting from zero a few years ago.” 

The highest number of people looking at buying electric cars was in B.C., with 57 per cent of those looking at buying a car saying they’d go electric, and even in southern Alberta interest is growing; like Bob Dylan in 1965 at the Newport Folk Festival.  

“The trends move from west to east across Canada,” said Jeff Farwell, chief executive officer of the All EV Canada electric car store in Burnside.  

“I would use the example of the craft beer market. It started in B.C. about 15 years before it finally went crazy in Nova Scotia. And if you look at Vancouver right now there’s (electric vehicles) everywhere.” 

Expectations high
Farwell expects electric vehicle sales to take off faster in Atlantic Canada than the craft beer market. “A lot faster.” 

His company also sells used electric vehicles in Prince Edward Island and is making moves to set up in Moncton, N.B. 

He’s been talking to Nova Scotia’s Department of Energy and Mines about creating rebates here for new and used electric vehicles. 

 “I guess they’re interested, but nothing’s happened,” Farwell said.  

Electric vehicles require “a bit of a lifestyle change,” he said. 

“The misconception is it takes a lot longer to charge a vehicle if it’s electric and gas only takes me 10 minutes to fill up at the gas station,” Farwell said.  

“The reality is when I go home at night, I plug my vehicle in,” he said. “I get up in the morning and I unplug it and I never have to think about it. It takes two seconds.”  
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California energy rebate freeze disrupts heat pump incentives, HVAC upgrades, and climate funding, as federal uncertainty stalls Inflation Reduction Act support, delaying home electrification, energy efficiency gains, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions statewide.

Key Points

A statewide pause on $290M incentives for heat pumps and HVAC upgrades due to federal climate funding uncertainty.

✅ $290M program paused amid federal funding freeze

✅ Heat pump, HVAC, electrification upgrades delayed

✅ Previously approved rebates honored; new apps halted

California’s push for a more energy-efficient future has hit a significant roadblock as the state pauses a $290 million rebate program aimed at helping homeowners replace inefficient heating and cooling systems with more energy-efficient alternatives. The California Energy Commission announced the suspension of the program, citing uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze funding for various climate-related initiatives.

The Halted Program

The energy rebate program, which utilizes federal funding to encourage the use of energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps, was a crucial part of California’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing financial incentives for homeowners to upgrade to more efficient heating and cooling systems, the program aimed to make green energy solutions more accessible and affordable to residents. The rebate program had been popular, with many homeowners eager to participate in the initiative to lower their energy costs and improve the sustainability of their homes.

However, due to the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the California Energy Commission announced on Monday that it would no longer be accepting new applications for the program. The agency did clarify that it would continue to honor rebates for applications that had already been approved. The pause will remain in effect until the Trump administration provides more clarity regarding the program's future funding.

The Trump Administration’s Role

This move highlights a broader issue regarding access to federal funding for state-level energy programs. The Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding for climate-related initiatives has left many states in limbo, as previously approved federal money has not been distributed as expected. Despite federal court rulings directing the Trump administration to restore these funds, states like California are still struggling to navigate the uncertainty of climate-related financial support from the federal government.

California’s decision to pause the rebate program comes after similar actions by other states. Arizona paused a similar program just a week prior, and Rhode Island had already paused new applications earlier this year. These states are all recipients of funding from a larger $4.3 billion initiative under the Inflation Reduction Act, which is designed to help homeowners purchase energy-efficient appliances like heat pumps, water heaters, and electric cooktops.

Impact of the Freeze

The pause of California's rebate program has serious implications for both consumers and the state’s energy goals. For residents, the halt means delays in the ability to upgrade to more energy-efficient home systems, which could lead to higher energy costs in the short term, a concern amid soaring electricity prices across the state.

The $290 million program was a significant step in encouraging homeowners to invest in energy efficiency, and its suspension leaves a gap in the availability of resources for those who were hoping to make energy-saving upgrades. Many of these upgrades are not just beneficial to homeowners, but they also contribute to the state’s overall energy efficiency goals, helping to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources, even as California's dependence on fossil fuels persists, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal and State Tensions

The freeze in funding is just one of many points of tension between the Trump administration and states like California, which have pursued aggressive environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions and combating climate change. California has often found itself at odds with the federal government on environmental issues, especially under the leadership of President Trump. The state’s ambitious environmental policies have sometimes clashed with the federal government's approach, including efforts to wind down its fossil fuel industry in line with climate goals.

In this case, the freeze on climate-related funding appears to be part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to limit federal spending on environmental programs, and as regulators weigh whether the state may need more power plants, planning remains complex. While the freeze impacts states that are working to transition to clean energy, critics argue that such moves undermine efforts to tackle climate change and could slow down progress toward a greener future.

The Path Forward

For California, the next steps will depend heavily on the actions of the federal government. While the state can continue to push for climate funding in the courts, the lack of clarity around the release of federal funds creates uncertainty for state programs that rely on these resources. As California continues to navigate this funding freeze, it will need to explore alternative solutions to keep its energy efficiency programs on track, such as efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid, even in the face of federal challenges.

In the meantime, California residents and homeowners who were hoping to take advantage of the rebate program may have to wait until further clarification from the federal government is provided, even as officials warn of a looming electricity shortage in coming years. Whether the program can be restored or expanded in the future remains to be seen, but for now, the pause serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles that states face when dealing with shifting federal priorities.

As the issue unfolds, other states facing similar challenges may take cues from California’s actions, and with California exporting energy policies to Western states, broader conversations about how federal and state governments can collaborate to ensure that energy efficiency initiatives and climate goals are not sidelined due to political or budgetary differences.

California’s decision to pause its $290 million energy rebate program is a significant development in the ongoing struggle between state and federal governments over climate-related funding. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration’s freeze on energy efficiency programs has led to disruptions in state-level efforts to promote sustainability and reduce emissions. As the situation continues to evolve, both California and other states will need to consider how to move forward without relying on federal funding that may or may not be available in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FirstEnergy Nuclear Plant Closures threaten Ohio and Pennsylvania jobs, tax revenue, and grid stability, as Nuclear Matters and Brattle Group warn of higher carbon emissions and market pressures from PJM and cheap natural gas.

Key Points

Planned shutdowns of Davis-Besse, Perry, and Beaver Valley, with regional economic and carbon impacts.

✅ Over 3,000 direct jobs and local tax revenue at risk

✅ Emissions may rise until renewables scale, possibly into 2034

✅ Debate over subsidies, market design, and PJM capacity rules

A national nuclear lobby wants to remind people what's at stake for Ohio and Pennsylvania if FirstEnergy Solutions follows through with plans to shut down three nuclear plants over the next three years, including its Davis-Besse nuclear plant east of Toledo.

A report issued Monday by Nuclear Matters largely echoes concerns raised by FES, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., and other supporters of nuclear power about economic and environmental hardships and brownout risks that will likely result from the planned closures.

Along with Davis-Besse, Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland and the twin-reactor Beaver Valley nuclear complex west of Pittsburgh are slated to close.

#google#

"If these plants close, the livelihoods of thousands of Ohio and Pennsylvania residents will disappear. The over 3,000 highly skilled individuals directly employed by these sites will leave to seek employment at other facilities still operating around the country," Lonnie Stephenson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers president, said in a statement distributed by Nuclear Matters. Mr. Stephenson also serves on the Nuclear Matters advocacy council.

This new report and others like it are part of an extensive campaign by nuclear energy advocates to court state and federal legislators one more time for tens of millions of dollars of financial support or at least legislation that better suits the nuclear industry. Critics allege such pleas amount to a request for massive government bailouts, arguing that deregulated electricity markets should not subsidize nuclear.

The latest report was prepared for Nuclear Matters by the Brattle Group, a firm that specializes in analyzing economic, finance, and regulatory issues for corporations, law firms, and governments.

"These announced retirements create a real urgency to learn what would happen if these plants are lost," Dean Murphy, the Brattle report's lead author, said.

More than 3,000 jobs would be lost, as would millions of dollars in tax revenue. It also could take as long as 2034 for the region's climate-altering carbon emissions to be brought back down to existing levels, based on current growth projections for solar- and wind-powered projects, and initiatives such as ending coal by 2032 by some utilities, Mr. Murphy said.

His group's report only takes into account nuclear plant operations, though. Many of those who oppose nuclear power have long pointed out that mining uranium for nuclear plant fuel generates substantial emissions, as does the process of producing steel cladding for fuel bundles and the enrichment-production of that fuel. Still, nuclear has ranked among the better performers in reports that have taken such a broader look at overall emissions.

FES has accused the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, of creating market conditions that favor natural gas and, thus, make it almost impossible for nuclear to compete throughout its 13-state region, a debate intensified by proposed electricity pricing changes at the federal level.

PJM has strongly denied those accusations, and has said it anticipates no shortfalls in energy distribution if those nuclear plants close prematurely, even as a recent FERC decision on grid policy drew industry criticism.

FES, citing massive losses, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The target dates for closures of the FES properties are May 31, 2020 for Davis-Besse; May 31, 2021 for Perry and Beaver Valley Unit 1, and Oct. 31, 2021 for Beaver Valley Unit 2.

In addition to the three FES sites, the report includes information about the Three Mile Island Unit 1 plant near Harrisburg, Pa., which Chicago-based Exelon Generation Corp. has previously announced will be shut down in 2019. That plant and others are experiencing similar difficulties the FES plants face by competing in a market radically changed by record-low natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

France Nuclear Heatwave Restrictions signal reduced nuclear power along the Rhone River as EDF imposes output limits due to high water temperatures, grid needs, with minimal price impact amid strong solar and exports.

Key Points

Temporary EDF output limits at Rhone River reactors due to hot water, protecting ecosystems and grid reliability.

✅ EDF expects halved output at Bugey and Saint Alban.

✅ Cuts align with water temperature and discharge rules.

✅ Weekend midday curtailments offset by solar supply.

The high temperature warning has come early this year but will affect fewer nuclear power plants. High temperatures could halve nuclear power production, with river temperature limits at plants along France's Rhone River this week. 

Output restrictions are expected at two nuclear plants in eastern France due to high temperature forecasts, nuclear operator EDF said. It comes several days ahead of a similar warning that was made last year but will affect fewer plants, and follows a period when power demand has held firm during lockdowns across Europe.

The hot weather is likely to halve the available power supply from the 3.6 GW Bugey plant from 13 July and the 2.6 GW Saint Alban plant from 16 July, the operator said.

However, production will be at least 1.8 GW at Bugey and 1.3 GW at Saint Alban to meet grid requirements, and may change according to grid needs, the operator said.

Kpler analyst Emeric de Vigan said the restrictions were likely to have little effect on output in practice. Cuts are likely only at the weekend or midday when solar output was at its peak so the impact on power prices would be slim.

He said the situation would need monitoring in the coming weeks, however, noting it was unusually early in the summer for nuclear-powered France to see such restrictions imposed.

Water temperatures at the Bugey plant already eclipsed the initial threshold for restrictions on 9 July, as European power hits records during the heatwave. They are currently forecast to peak next week and then drop again, Refinitiv data showed.

"France is currently net exporting large amounts of power – and, despite a nuclear power dispute with Germany, single nuclear units' supply restrictions will not have the same effect as last year," Refinitiv analyst Nathalie Gerl said.

The Garonne River in southern France has the highest potential for critical levels of warming, but its Golfech plant is currently offline for maintenance until mid-August, as Europe faces nuclear losses, the data showed.

"(The restrictions were) to be expected and it will probably occur more often," Greenpeace campaigner Roger Spautz said.

"The authorities must stick to existing regulations for water discharges. Otherwise, the ecosystems will be even more affected," he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Belgium Energy Mix 2019 shows strong nuclear output, rising offshore wind, net electricity exports, and robust interconnections, per Elia, as the nuclear phaseout drives 3.9GW new capacity needs after improved reactor availability.

Key Points

High nuclear share, offshore wind, net exports, interconnections; 3.9GW capacity needed amid nuclear phaseout.

✅ Nuclear supplied 48.8% of generation in 2019.

✅ Net exporter: 1.8 TWh, aided by interconnections.

✅ Elia projects 3.9GW new capacity for phaseout.

Belgium's electricity transmission system operator, Elia, said that the major trends in 2019 were a steady increase in (mainly offshore) renewable power generation, illustrated by EU wind and solar records across the bloc, better availability of nuclear-generating facilities and an increase in electricity exports.

In 2019, 48.8% of the power generated in Belgium came from nuclear plants. This was in line with the total for 2017 (50%) and significantly more than in 2018 (31.2%) when several reactors were unavailable amid stunted hydro and nuclear output in Europe as well.

Belgium exported more electricity in 2019, as neighbors like Germany saw renewables overtake coal and nuclear generation, with net exports of 1.8TWh (2.1% of the energy mix), in contrast to 2018 when Belgium imported 17.5TWh (20%).

Elia said this “should be viewed in its wider context, of declining nuclear capacity in Europe and regional market shifts, against the backdrop of an increasingly Europeanised market, and can be explained primarily by the good availability of Belgium's generating facilities (especially its nuclear power stations).”

The development of interconnections was also a key factor in the circulation of these electricity flows, as seen with Irish grid price spikes highlighting regional stress, Elia noted.

“Belgium had not been a net exporter of electricity for almost 10 years, the last time being in 2009 and 2010, when total net exports represented 2.8% and 0.2% respectively of Belgium’s energy mix,” it said.

Belgian has seven nuclear reactors – three at Tihange near Liege and four at Doel near Antwerp – and, regionally, nuclear-powered France faces outage risks that influence cross-border reliability.

In 2003, Belgium decided to phase out nuclear power and passed a law to that effect, with neighbors like Germany navigating a balancing act during their energy transition, which was reaffirmed in 2015 and 2018.

A commission appointed to assess the impact of the nuclear phaseout is scheduled to be completed in 2025 but has yet to report any findings.

Elia estimates that some 3.9GW of new power generating capacity will be needed to compensate for Belgium's nuclear phaseout.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News