ConEdison, union have tentative contract

UK Coal Phase-Out signals an energy transition, accelerating decarbonization with offshore wind, solar, and storage, advancing net-zero targets, cleaner air, and a just transition for communities impacted by fossil fuel decline.

Key Points

A policy to end coal power in the UK, boosting renewables and net-zero goals while improving air quality.

✅ Coal electricity fell from 40% in 2012 to under 3% by 2022

✅ Offshore wind and solar expand capacity; storage enhances reliability

✅ Just transition funds retrain workers and support coal regions

The United Kingdom is poised to mark a significant milestone in its energy history by phasing out coal power entirely, ending a reliance that has lasted for 142 years. This decision underscores the UK’s commitment to combating climate change and transitioning toward cleaner energy sources, reflecting a broader global energy transition away from fossil fuels. As the country embarks on this journey, it highlights both the achievements and challenges of moving towards a sustainable energy future.

A Historic Transition

The UK’s relationship with coal dates back to the Industrial Revolution, when coal was the backbone of its energy supply, driving factories, trains, and homes. However, as concerns over air quality and climate change have mounted, the nation has progressively shifted its focus toward renewable energy sources amid a global decline in coal-fired electricity worldwide. The decision to end coal power represents the culmination of this transformation, signaling a definitive break from a past heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

In recent years, the UK has made remarkable strides in reducing its carbon emissions. From 2012 to 2022, coal's contribution to the country's electricity generation plummeted from around 40% to less than 3%, as policies like the British carbon tax took effect across the power sector. This dramatic decline is largely due to the rise of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, which have increasingly filled the gap left by coal.

Environmental and Health Benefits

The move away from coal power has significant environmental benefits. Coal is one of the most carbon-intensive energy sources, releasing substantial amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other harmful pollutants into the atmosphere. By phasing out coal, the UK aims to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, which has been linked to serious health issues such as respiratory diseases and cardiovascular problems.

The UK government has set ambitious net zero policies, aiming to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Ending coal power is a critical step in reaching this target, demonstrating leadership on the global stage and setting an example for other countries still dependent on fossil fuels. This transition not only addresses climate change but also promotes a healthier environment for future generations.

The Role of Renewable Energy

As the UK phases out coal, renewable energy sources are expected to play a central role in meeting the country's energy needs. Wind power, in particular, has surged in prominence, with the UK leading the world in offshore wind capacity. In 2020, wind energy surpassed coal for the first time, accounting for over 24% of the country's electricity generation.

Solar energy has also seen significant growth, contributing to the diversification of the UK’s energy mix. The government’s investments in renewable energy infrastructure and technology have facilitated this rapid transition, providing the necessary framework for a sustainable energy future.

Economic Implications

While the transition away from coal power presents environmental benefits, it also carries economic implications. The coal industry has historically provided jobs and economic activity, particularly in regions where coal mining was a mainstay, a dynamic echoed in analyses of the decarbonization of Canada's electricity grid and its regional impacts. As the UK moves toward a greener economy, there is an urgent need to support communities that may be adversely affected by this transition.

To address potential job losses, the government has emphasized the importance of investing in retraining programs and creating new opportunities in the renewable energy sector. This will be vital in ensuring a just transition that supports workers and communities as the energy landscape evolves.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the progress made, the journey toward a coal-free UK is not without challenges. One significant concern is the need for reliable energy storage solutions to complement intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. Ensuring a stable energy supply during periods of low generation will be critical for maintaining grid reliability.

Moreover, public acceptance and engagement will be crucial, as illustrated by debates over New Zealand's electricity transition and its pace, as the UK navigates this transition. Engaging communities in discussions about energy policies and developments can foster understanding and support for the changes ahead.

Looking to the Future

The UK’s decision to phase out coal power after 142 years marks a significant turning point in its energy policy and environmental strategy. This historic shift not only aligns with the country’s climate goals but also showcases its commitment to a cleaner, more sustainable future.

As the UK continues to invest in renewable energy and transition away from fossil fuels, it sets an important example for other nations, including those on China's path to carbon neutrality, grappling with similar challenges. By embracing this transition, the UK is not only addressing pressing environmental concerns but also paving the way for a greener economy that can thrive in the decades to come.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hungary's Russian Energy Dependence underscores EU tensions, as TurkStream gas flows, discounted imports, and pipeline reliance challenge sanctions, energy security, diversification, and decoupling goals amid Ukraine war pressures and bloc unity concerns.

Key Points

It is Hungary's reliance on Russian gas and oil via TurkStream, complicating EU sanctions and energy independence.

✅ 85% gas, 60% oil imports from Russia via TurkStream pipelines.

✅ Discounted contracts seldom cut bills; security cited by Budapest.

✅ EU decoupling targets hampered; sanctions leverage and unity erode.

Hungary's energy policies have positioned it as a notable outlier within the European Union, particularly in the context of the ongoing geopolitical tensions stemming from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While the EU has been actively working to reduce its dependence on Russian energy sources through an EU $300 billion plan to dump Russian energy, Hungary has maintained and even strengthened its energy ties with Moscow, raising concerns about EU unity and the effectiveness of sanctions.

Strategic Energy Dependence

Hungary's energy infrastructure is heavily reliant on Russian supplies. Approximately 85% of Hungary's natural gas and more than 60% of its oil imports originate from Russia. This dependence is facilitated through pipelines such as TurkStream, which delivers Russian gas to Hungary via Turkey and the Balkans amid Europe's energy nightmare over price volatility and security. In 2025, Hungary's gas imports through TurkStream are projected to reach 8 billion cubic meters, a significant increase from previous years. These imports are often secured at discounted rates, although such savings may not always be passed on to Hungarian consumers.

Political and Economic Considerations

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been a vocal critic of EU sanctions against Russia and has consistently blocked EU initiatives aimed at providing military aid to Ukraine, even as Ukraine leans on power imports to keep the lights on. His government argues that Russia's military capabilities make it an unyielding adversary and that a ceasefire would only solidify its territorial gains. Orbán's stance has led to Hungary's isolation within the EU on matters related to the conflict in Ukraine.

Economically, Hungary's reliance on Russian energy has been justified by the government as a means to maintain low energy prices for consumers and ensure energy security. However, critics argue that this strategy undermines EU efforts to achieve energy independence and reduces the bloc's leverage over Russia amid a global energy war marked by price hikes and instability.

EU's Response and Challenges

The European Union has set ambitious goals to reduce its reliance on Russian energy, aiming to halt imports of Russian natural gas by the end of 2027 and prohibit new contracts starting in 2025 while exploring gas price cap strategies to contain market volatility. However, Hungary's continued imports of Russian energy complicate these efforts. The TurkStream pipeline, in particular, has become a focal point in discussions about the EU's energy strategy, as it enables ongoing Russian gas exports to Europe despite the bloc's broader decoupling initiatives.

Hungary's actions have raised concerns among other EU member states about the effectiveness of the sanctions regime and the potential for other countries to exploit similar loopholes. There are calls for stricter policies, including banning spot gas purchases and enforcing traceability of gas origins, and consideration of emergency measures to limit electricity prices to ensure genuine energy independence and reduce overreliance on external suppliers.

Hungary's steadfast energy relationship with Russia presents a significant challenge to the European Union's collective efforts to reduce dependence on Russian energy sources. While Hungary argues that its energy strategy is in the national interest, it risks undermining EU solidarity and the bloc's broader geopolitical objectives. As the EU continues to navigate its energy transition and response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, including energy ceasefire violations reported by both sides, Hungary's position will remain a critical point of contention within the union.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

World Bank Energy Policy debates financing for coal, oil, gas, and renewables to fight energy poverty, expand grid reliability, ensure baseload power, and balance climate goals with development finance for affordable, reliable electricity access.

Key Points

It outlines the bank's stance on financing fossil fuels and renewables to expand affordable, reliable electricity.

✅ Focus on energy access, baseload reliability, and poverty alleviation

✅ Debate over coal, gas, and renewables in development finance

✅ Geopolitics: China and Russia fill funding gaps, raising risks

Why isn’t the World Bank using all available energy resources in its global efforts to fight poverty? That’s the question I’ve asked World Bank President David Malpass. Nearly two years ago, the multilateral development bank decided to stop supporting critical coal, oil and gas projects that help people in developing countries escape poverty.

Along with 11 other senators, and as a member who votes on whether to give U.S. taxpayer dollars to the World Bank, I am pressing the bank to lift these restrictions. Developing countries desperately need access to a steady supply of affordable, reliable clean electricity to support economic growth.

The World Bank has pulled funding for critical electricity projects in poor countries, including high-efficiency power stations that are fueled by coal, even as efforts to revitalize coal communities with clean energy have grown.

Despite Kosovo having the world’s fifth-largest reserves of coal, the bank announced it would only support new energy projects from renewable sources going forward. Kosovo’s Minister of Economic Development Valdrin Lluka responded: “We don’t have the luxury to do such experiments in a poor country such as Kosovo. … It is in our national security interest to secure base energy inside our country.”

The World Bank’s misguided move comes as 840 million people worldwide are living without electricity, including 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa, and as the fall in global energy investment may lead to shortages.

Even more troubling, nearly 3 billion people in developing countries rely on fuels like wood and other biomass for cooking and home heating, resulting in serious health problems and premature deaths, and the pandemic saw widespread electricity shut-offs that deepened energy insecurity. In 2016, household smoke killed an estimated 2.6 million people.

The World Bank’s mission is to lift people out of poverty. The bank is now compromising that mission in favor of a political agenda targeting certain energy sources.

With the World Bank blocking financing to affordable and reliable energy projects, Russia and China are stepping up their investments in order to gain geopolitical leverage.

President Vladimir Putin is pursuing Russian oil and gas projects in Mozambique, Gabon, and Angola. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is supporting traditional energy resources, with 36 percent of its power projects from 2014 to 2017 involving coal. South Africa had to turn to the China Development Bank to fund its $1.5 billion coal-fired power plant.

There are real risks for countries partnering with China and Russia on these projects. Developing countries are facing what some are calling China’s “debt trap” diplomacy. These nations have also raised concerns over safety compliance, unfair business practices, and labor standards.

As the bank’s largest contributor, the United States has a duty to make sure U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely and effectively. Every U.S. dollar at the World Bank should make a difference for people in the developing world.

My colleagues and I have asked the bank to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy as it strives to achieve its mission to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. We will take the bank’s response into account during the congressional appropriations process.

The United States is a top global energy producer. And yet Democrats running for president are pursuing anti-energy policies that would hurt not only the United States but the entire world, with implications for U.S. national security as well.

Utilizing our abundant energy resources has fueled an American energy renaissance and a booming U.S. economy, even as disruptions in coal and nuclear have strained the grid, with millions of new jobs and higher wages.

People who are struggling to survive and thrive in developing countries deserve the same opportunity to access affordable and reliable sources of power.

As Microsoft founder and global philanthropist Bill Gates has noted of renewables: "Many people experiencing energy poverty live in areas without access to the kind of grids that are needed to make those technologies cheap and reliable enough to replace fossil fuels."

Ultimately, there is a role for all sources of energy to help countries alleviate poverty and improve the education, health and wellbeing of their people.

The solution to ending energy poverty does not lie in limiting options, but in using all available options. The World Bank must recommit to ending extreme poverty by helping countries use all of the world’s abundant energy resources. Let’s end energy poverty now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COVID-19 Impact on Electricity Demand, per IEA data, shows 15% global load drop from lockdowns, with residential use up, industrial and service sectors down; fossil fuel generation fell as renewables and photovoltaics gained share.

Key Points

An overview of how lockdowns cut global power demand, boosted residential use, and increased the renewable share.

✅ IEA review shows at least 15% dip in daily global electricity load

✅ Lockdowns cut commercial and industrial demand; homes used more

✅ Fossil fuels fell as renewables and PV generation gained share

The daily demand for electricity dipped at least 15 per cent across the globe, according to Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions, a report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in April 2020, even as global power demand surged above pre-pandemic levels.

The report collated data from 30 countries, including India and China, that showed partial and full lockdown measures adopted by them were responsible for this decrease.

Full lockdowns in countries — including France, Italy, India, Spain, the United Kingdom where daily demand fell about 10% and the midwest region of the United States (US) — reduced this demand for electricity.

Reduction in electricity demand after lockdown measures (weather corrected)

Source: Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions, IEA

Drivers of the fall

There was, however, a spike in residential demand for electricity as a result of people staying and working from home. This increase in residential demand, though, was not enough to compensate for reduced demand from industrial and commercial operations.

The extent of reduction depended not only on the duration and stringency of the lockdown, but also on the nature of the economy of the countries — predominantly service- or industry-based — the IEA report said.

A higher decline in electricity demand was noted in countries where the service sector — including retail, hospitality, education, tourism — was dominant, compared to countries that had industrial economies.

The US, for example — where industry forms only 20 per cent of the economy — saw larger reductions in electricity demand, compared to China, where power demand dropped as the industry accounts for more than 60 per cent of the economy.

Italy — the worst-affected country from COVID-19 — saw a decline greater than 25 per cent when compared to figures from last year, even as power demand held firm in parts of Europe during later lockdowns.

The report said the shutting down of the hospitality and tourism sectors in the country — major components of the Italian economy — were said to have had a higher impact, than any other factor, for this fall.

Reduced fossil fuel dependency

Almost all of the reduction in demand was reportedly because of the shutting down of fossil fuel-based power generation, according to the report. Instead, the share of electricity supply from renewables in the entire portfolio of energy sources, increased during the pandemic, reflecting low-carbon electricity lessons observed during COVID-19.

This was due to a natural increase in wind and photovoltaic power generation compared to 2019 along with a drop in overall electricity demand that forced electricity producers from non-renewable sources to decrease their supplies, before surging electricity demand began to strain power systems worldwide.

The Power System Operation Corporation of India also reported that electricity production from coal — India’s primary source of electricity — fell by 32.2 per cent to 1.91 billion units (kilowatt-hours) per day, in line with India's electricity demand decline reported during the pandemic, compared to the 2019 levels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany's Economic Downturn reflects an energy crisis, deindustrialization risks, export weakness, and manufacturing stress, amid Russia gas loss, IMF and EU recession forecasts, and debates over electricity price caps and green transition.

Key Points

An economic contraction from energy price shocks, export weakness, and bottlenecks in manufacturing and digitization.

✅ Energy shock after loss of cheap Russian gas

✅ Exports slump amid China slowdown and weak demand

✅ Policy gridlock on power price cap and permits

Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-performing major developed economy. What happened?

For most of this century, Germany racked up one economic success after another, dominating global markets for high-end products like luxury cars and industrial machinery, selling so much to the rest of the world that half the economy ran on exports.

Jobs were plentiful, the government’s financial coffers grew as other European countries drowned in debt, and books were written about what other countries could learn from Germany.

No longer. Now, Germany is the world’s worst-performing major developed economy, with both the International Monetary Fund and European Union expecting it to shrink this year.

It follows Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the loss of Moscow’s cheap Russian gas that underpinned industry — an unprecedented shock to Germany’s energy-intensive industries, long the manufacturing powerhouse of Europe.

The sudden underperformance by Europe’s largest economy has set off a wave of criticism, handwringing and debate about the way forward.

Germany risks “deindustrialization” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere, said Christian Kullmann, CEO of major German chemical company Evonik Industries AG.

From his 21st-floor office in the west German town of Essen, Kullmann points out the symbols of earlier success across the historic Ruhr Valley industrial region: smokestacks from metal plants, giant heaps of waste from now-shuttered coal mines, a massive BP oil refinery and Evonik’s sprawling chemical production facility.

These days, the former mining region, where coal dust once blackened hanging laundry, is a symbol of the energy transition, as the power sector’s balancing act continues with wind turbines and green space.

The loss of cheap Russian natural gas needed to power factories “painfully damaged the business model of the German economy,” Kullmann told The Associated Press. “We’re in a situation where we’re being strongly affected — damaged — by external factors.”

After Russia cut off most of its gas to the European Union, spurring an energy crisis in the 27-nation bloc that had sourced 40% of the fuel from Moscow, the German government asked Evonik to turn to coal by keeping its 1960s coal-fired power plant running a few months longer.

The company is shifting away from the plant — whose 40-story smokestack fuels production of plastics and other goods — to two gas-fired generators that can later run on hydrogen amid plans to become carbon neutral by 2030 and following the nuclear phase-out of recent years.

One hotly debated solution: a government-funded cap on industrial electricity prices to get the economy through the renewable energy transition, amid an energy crisis that even saw a temporary nuclear extension to stabilize supply.

The proposal from Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck of the Greens Party has faced resistance from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, and pro-business coalition partner the Free Democrats. Environmentalists say it would only prolong reliance on fossil fuels, while others advocate a nuclear option to meet climate goals.

Kullmann is for it: “It was mistaken political decisions that primarily developed and influenced these high energy costs. And it can’t now be that German industry, German workers should be stuck with the bill.”

The price of gas is roughly double what it was in 2021, with a senior official arguing nuclear would do little to solve that gas issue, hurting companies that need it to keep glass or metal red-hot and molten 24 hours a day to make glass, paper and metal coatings used in buildings and cars.

A second blow came as key trade partner China experiences a slowdown after several decades of strong economic growth.

These outside shocks have exposed cracks in Germany’s foundation that were ignored during years of success, including lagging use of digital technology in government and business and a lengthy process to get badly needed renewable energy projects approved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News