Small communities howl over wind turbines

Pickering Nuclear False Alert Investigation probes Ontario's emergency alert system after a provincewide cellphone, radio, and TV warning, assessing human error, Pelmorex safeguards, Emergency Management Ontario oversight, and communication delays.

Key Points

An Ontario probe into the erroneous Pickering nuclear alert, focusing on human error, system safeguards, and oversight.

✅ Human error during routine testing suspected

✅ Pelmorex safeguards and EMO protocols under review

✅ Two-hour all-clear delay prompts communication fixes

An investigation into a mistaken Pickering alert warning of an incident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station will be completed fairly quickly, Ontario's solicitor general said.

Sylvia Jones tapped the chief of Emergency Management Ontario to investigate how the alert warning of an unspecified problem at the facility was sent in error to cellphones, radios and TVs across the province at about 7:30 a.m. Sunday.

"It's very important for me, for the people of Ontario, to know exactly what happened on Sunday morning," said Jones. "Having said that, I do not anticipate this is going to be a long, drawn-out investigation. I want to know what happened and equally important, I want some recommendations on insurances and changes we can make to the system to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Initial observations suggest human error was responsible for the alert that was sent out during routine tests of the emergency alert, Jones said.

"This has never happened in the history of the tests that they do every day, twice a day, but I do want to know exactly all of the issues related to it, whether it was one human error or whether it was a series of things."

Martin Belanger, the director of public alerting for Pelmorex, a company that operates the alert system, said there are a number of safeguards built in, including having two separate platforms for training and live alerts.

"The software has some steps and some features built in to minimize that risk and to make sure that users will be able to know whether or not they're sending an alert through the...training platform or whether they're accessing the live system in the case of a real emergency," he said.

Only authorized users have access to the system and the province manages that, Belanger said. Once in the live system, features make the user aware of which platform they are using, with various prompts and messages requiring the user's confirmation. There is a final step that also requires the user to confirm their intent of issuing an alert to cellphones, radio and TVs, Belanger said.

On Sunday, a follow-up alert was sent to cellphones nearly two hours after the original notification, and similar grid alerts in Alberta underscore timing and public expectations.

NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns is critical of that delay, noting that ongoing utility scam warnings can further erode public trust.

"That's a long time for people to be waiting to find out what's really going on," he said. "If people lose confidence in this system, the ability to use it when there is a real emergency will be impaired. That's dangerous."

Treasury Board President Peter Bethlenfalvy, who represents the riding of Pickering-Uxbridge, said getting that alert Sunday morning was "a shock to the system," and he too wants the investigation to address the reason for the all-clear delay.

"We all have a lot of questions," he said. "I think the public has every right to know exactly what went on and we feel exactly the same way."

People in the community know the facility is safe, Bethlenfalvy said.

"We have some of the safest nuclear assets in the world -- the safest -- at 60 per cent of Ontario's electricity," he said.

A poll released Monday found that 82 per cent of Canadians are concerned about spills from nuclear reactors contaminating drinking water and 77 per cent are concerned about neighbourhood safety and security risks for those living close to nuclear plants. Oraclepoll Research surveyed 2,094 people across the country on behalf of Friends of the Earth between Jan. 2 and 12, the day of the false alert. The have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

The wording of Sunday's alert caused much initial confusion, and events like a power outage in London show how morning disruptions can amplify concern, warning residents within 10 kilometres of the plant of "an incident," though there was no "abnormal" release of radioactivity and residents didn't need to take protective steps, but emergency crews were responding.

In the event of a real emergency, the wording would be different, Jones said.

"There are a number of different alerts that are already prepared and are ready to go," she said. "We have the ability to localize it to the communities that are impacted, but because this was a test, it went provincewide."

Jones said she expects the results of the probe to be made public.

The Pickering nuclear plant has been operating since 1971, and had been scheduled to be decommissioned this year, but the former Liberal government -- and the current Progressive Conservative government -- committed to keeping it open until 2024. Decommissioning is now set to start in 2028.

It operates six CANDU reactors, generates 14 per cent of Ontario's electricity and is responsible for 4,500 jobs across the region, according to OPG, and OPG's credit rating remains stable.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Hydro One employees supported the Province of Ontario in the fight against COVID-19.

The Green party is calling on the province to use this opportunity to review its nuclear emergency response plan, including pandemic staffing contingencies, last updated in 2017 and subject to review every five years.

Toronto Mayor John Tory praised Ontario for swiftly launching an investigation, but said communication between city and provincial officials wasn't what it should have been under the circumstances.

"It was a poor showing and I think everybody involved knows that," he said. "We've got to make sure it's not repeated."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Ukraine Electricity Outages may pause as the grid stabilizes, with energy infrastructure repairs, generators, and reserves supporting supply; officials cite no rationing absent new Russian strikes, while Odesa networks recover and Ukrenergo completes restoration works.

Key Points

Planned power cuts in Ukraine paused as grid capacity, repairs, and reserves improve, barring new strikes.

✅ No rationing if Russia halts strikes on energy infrastructure

✅ Grid repairs and reserves meet demand for third straight week

✅ Odesa networks restored; Ukrenergo crews redeploy to repairs

Ukraine plans no more outages to ration electricity if there are no new strikes and has been able to amass some power reserves, the energy minister said on Saturday, as it continues to keep the lights on despite months of interruptions caused by Russian bombings.

"Electricity restrictions will not be introduced, provided there are no Russian strikes on infrastructure facilities," Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko said in remarks posted on the ministry's Telegram messaging platform.

"Outages will only be used for repairs."

After multiple battlefield setbacks and scaling down its troop operation to Ukraine's east and south, Russia in October began bombing the country's energy infrastructure, as winter loomed over the battlefront, leaving millions without power and heat for days on end.

The temperature in winter months often stays below freezing across most of Ukraine. Halushchenko said this heating season has been extremely difficult.

"But our power engineers managed to maintain the power system, and for the third week in a row, electricity generation has ensured consumption needs, we have reserves," Halushchenko said.

Ukraine, which does not produce power generators itself, has imported and received thousands of them over the past few years, with the U.S. pledging a further $10 billion on Friday to aid Kyiv's energy needs, despite ended grid restoration support reported earlier.

Separately, the chief executive of state grid operator Ukrenergo, Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, said that repair works on the damaged infrastructure in the city of Odesa suffered earlier this month, has been finished, highlighting how Ukraine has even helped Spain amid blackouts while managing its own network challenges.

"Starting this evening, there is more light in Odesa," Kudrytskyi wrote on his Facebook page. "The crews that worked on restoring networks are moving to other facilities."

A Feb. 4 fire that broke out at an overloaded power station left hundreds of thousands of residents without electricity, prompting many to adopt new energy solutions to cope with outages.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Hertel-New York Interconnection delivers Hydro-Quebec renewable energy via a cross-border transmission line to New York City by 2025, supplying 1,250 MW through underground and underwater routes under a 25-year contract.

Key Points

A cross-border line delivering 1,250 MW of Hydro-Quebec hydropower to New York City via underground routes.

✅ 1,250 MW clean power to NYC by 2025

✅ 56.1 km underground, 1.6 km underwater in Quebec

✅ 25-year contract; Mohawk partnership revenue

Hydro-Quebec announced Thursday it has chosen the route for the Hertel-New York interconnection line, which will begin construction in the spring of 2023 in Quebec.

The project will deliver 1,250 megawatts of Quebec hydroelectricity to New York City starting in 2025, even as a recent electricity shortage report warns about rising demand at home.

It's a 25-year contract for Hydro-Quebec, the largest export contract for the province-owned company, and comes as hydrogen production investments gain traction in Eastern Canada.

The Crown corporation has not disclosed potential revenues from the project, but Premier François Legault mentioned on social media last September that a deal in principle worth more than $20 billion over 25 years was in the works.

The route includes a 56.1-kilometre underground and a 1.6-kilometre underwater section, similar to the Lake Erie Connector project planned under Lake Erie.

Eight municipalities in the Montérégie region will be affected: La Prairie, Saint-Philippe, Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur, Saint-Édouard, Saint-Patrice-de-Sherrington, Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville, Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle and Lacolle.

Across the country, new renewables such as wind projects in Yukon are receiving federal support, reflecting broader grid decarbonization.

The last part of the route will run along Fairbanks Creek to the Richelieu River, where it will connect with the American network.

Further south, there will be a 545-kilometre link between the Canada-U.S. border and New York City, while a separate Maine transmission approval advances a New England pathway for Quebec power.

Hydro-Quebec is holding two consultations on the project, on Dec. 8 in Lacolle and Dec. 9 in Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur.

Elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, EV-to-grid integration pilots are underway to test how vehicles can support the power system.

Once the route is in service, the Quebec line will be subject to a partnership between Hydro-Quebec and the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, which will benefit from economic remunerations for 40 years.

To enhance reliability, grid-scale battery storage projects are also expanding in Ontario.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Finland Shadow Fleet Cable Investigation details suspected Russia-linked sabotage of Baltic Sea undersea cables, AIS dark activity, and false-flag tactics threatening critical infrastructure, prompting NATO and EU vigilance against hybrid warfare across Northern Europe.

Key Points

Finland probes suspected sabotage of undersea cables by a Russia-linked vessel using flag of convenience and AIS off.

✅ Undersea cable damage in Baltic Sea sparks security alerts

✅ Suspected shadow fleet ship ran AIS dark under false flag

✅ NATO and EU boost maritime surveillance, critical infrastructure

In December 2024, Finland launched an investigation into a ship allegedly linked to Russia’s “shadow fleet” following a series of incidents involving damage to undersea cables. The investigation has raised significant concerns in Finland and across Europe, as it suggests possible sabotage or other intentional acts related to the disruption of vital communication and energy infrastructure in the Baltic Sea region. This article explores the key details of the investigation, the role of Russia’s shadow fleet, and the broader geopolitical implications of this event.

The "Shadow Fleet" and Its Role

The term “shadow fleet” refers to a collection of ships, often disguised or operating under false flags, that are believed to be part of Russia's covert maritime operations. These vessels are typically used for activities such as smuggling, surveillance, and potentially military operations, mirroring the covert hacker infrastructure documented by researchers in related domains. In recent years, the "shadow fleet" has been under increasing scrutiny due to its involvement in various clandestine actions, especially in regions close to NATO member countries and areas with sensitive infrastructure.

Russia’s "shadow fleet" operates in the shadows of regular international shipping, often difficult to track due to the use of deceptive practices like turning off automatic identification systems (AIS). This makes it difficult for authorities to monitor their movements and assess their true purpose, raising alarm bells when one of these ships is suspected of being involved in damaging vital infrastructure like undersea cables.

The Cable Damage Incident

The investigation was sparked after damage was discovered to an undersea cable in the Baltic Sea, a vital link for communication, data transmission, and energy supply between Finland and other parts of Europe. These undersea cables are crucial for everything from internet connections to energy grid stability, with recent Nordic grid constraints underscoring their importance, and any disruption to them can have serious consequences.

Finnish authorities reported that the damage appeared to be deliberate, raising suspicions of potential sabotage. The timing of the damage coincides with a period of heightened tensions between Russia and the West, particularly following the escalation of the war in Ukraine, with recent strikes on Ukraine's power grid highlighting the stakes, and ongoing geopolitical instability. This has led many to speculate that the damage to the cables could be part of a broader strategy to undermine European security and disrupt critical infrastructure.

Upon further investigation, a vessel that had been in the vicinity at the time of the damage was identified as potentially being part of Russia’s "shadow fleet." The ship had been operating under a false flag and had disabled its AIS system, making it challenging for authorities to track its movements. The vessel’s activities raised red flags, and Finnish authorities are now working closely with international partners to ascertain its involvement in the incident.

Geopolitical Implications

The damage to undersea cables and the suspected involvement of Russia’s "shadow fleet" have broader geopolitical implications, particularly in the context of Europe’s security landscape. Undersea cables are considered critical infrastructure, akin to electric utilities where intrusions into US control rooms have been documented, and any deliberate attack on them could be seen as an act of war or an attempt to destabilize regional security.

In the wake of the investigation, there has been increased concern about the vulnerability of Europe’s energy and communication networks, which are increasingly reliant on these undersea connections, and as the Baltics pursue grid synchronization with the EU to reduce dependencies, policymakers are reassessing resilience measures. The European Union, alongside NATO, has expressed growing alarm over potential threats to this infrastructure, especially as tensions with Russia continue to escalate.

The incident also highlights the growing risks associated with hybrid warfare tactics, which combine conventional military actions with cyberattacks, including the U.S. condemnation of power grid hacking as a cautionary example, sabotage, and disinformation campaigns. The targeting of undersea cables could be part of a broader strategy by Russia to disrupt Europe’s ability to coordinate and respond effectively, particularly in the context of ongoing sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Furthermore, the suspected involvement of a "shadow fleet" ship raises questions about the transparency and accountability of maritime activities in the region. The use of vessels operating under false flags or without identification systems complicates efforts to monitor and regulate shipping in international waters. This has led to calls for stronger maritime security measures and greater cooperation between European countries to ensure the safety and integrity of critical infrastructure.

Finland’s Response and Ongoing Investigation

In response to the cable damage incident, Finnish authorities have mobilized a comprehensive investigation, seeking to determine the extent of the damage and whether the actions were deliberate or accidental. The Finnish government has called for increased vigilance and cooperation with international partners to identify and address potential threats to undersea infrastructure, drawing on Symantec's Dragonfly research for insights into hostile capabilities.

Finland, which shares a border with Russia and has been increasingly concerned about its security in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, has ramped up its defense posture. The damage to undersea cables serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that come with an interconnected global infrastructure, and Finland’s security services are likely to scrutinize the incident as part of their broader defense strategy.

Additionally, the incident is being closely monitored by NATO and the European Union, both of which have emphasized the importance of safeguarding critical infrastructure. As an EU member and NATO partner, Finland’s response to this situation could influence how Europe addresses similar challenges in the future.

The investigation into the damage to undersea cables in the Baltic Sea, allegedly linked to Russia’s "shadow fleet," has significant implications for European security. The use of covert operations, including the deployment of ships under false flags, underscores the growing threats to vital infrastructure in the region. With tensions between Russia and the West continuing to rise, the potential for future incidents targeting critical communication and energy networks is a pressing concern.

As Finland continues its investigation, the incident highlights the need for greater international cooperation and vigilance in safeguarding undersea cables and other critical infrastructure. In a world where hybrid warfare tactics are becoming increasingly common, ensuring the security of these vital connections will be crucial for maintaining stability in Europe. The outcome of this investigation may serve as a crucial case study in the ongoing efforts to protect infrastructure from emerging and unconventional threats.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Duke Energy Clean Energy Strategy advances renewables, battery storage, grid modernization, and energy efficiency to cut carbon, retire coal, and target net-zero by 2050 across the Carolinas with robust IRPs and capital investments.

Key Points

Plan to expand renewables, storage, and grid upgrades to cut carbon and reach net-zero electricity by 2050.

✅ 56B investment in renewables, storage, and grid modernization

✅ Targets 50% carbon reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050

✅ Retires coal units; expands energy efficiency and IRPs

Duke Energy says that the company will continue advancing its ambitious clean energy goals without the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) by investing in renewables, battery storage, energy efficiency programs and grid projects that support U.S. electrification efforts.

Duke Energy, the nation's largest electric utility, unveils its new logo. (PRNewsFoto/Duke Energy) (PRNewsfoto/Duke Energy)

Duke Energy's $56 billion capital investment plan will deliver significant customer benefits and create jobs at a time when policymakers at all levels are looking for ways to rebuild the economy in 2020 and beyond. These investments will deliver cleaner energy for customers and communities while enhancing the energy grid to provide greater reliability and resiliency.

"Sustainability and the reduction of carbon emissions are closely tied to our region's success," said Lynn Good, Duke Energy Chair, President and CEO. "In our recent Climate Report, we shared a vision of a cleaner electricity future with an increasing focus on renewables and battery storage in addition to a diverse mix of zero-carbon nuclear, natural gas, hydro and energy efficiency programs.

"Achieving this clean energy vision will require all of us working together to develop a plan that is smart, equitable and ensures the reliability and affordability that will spur economic growth in the region. While we're disappointed that we're not able to move forward with ACP, we will continue exploring ways to help our customers and communities, particularly in eastern North Carolina where the need is great," said Good.

Already a clean-energy leader, Duke Energy has reduced its carbon emissions by 39% from 2005 and remains on track to cut its carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2030, as peers like Alliant's carbon-neutral plan demonstrate broader industry momentum toward decarbonization. The company also has an ambitious clean energy goal of reaching net-zero emissions from electricity generation by 2050. 

In September 2020, Duke Energy plans to file its Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) for the Carolinas after an extensive process of working with the state's leaders, policymakers, customers and other stakeholders. The IRPs will include multiple scenarios to support a path to a cleaner energy future in the Carolinas, reflecting key utility trends shaping resource planning.

Since 2010, Duke Energy has retired 51 coal units totaling more than 6,500 megawatts (MW) and plans to retire at least an additional 900 MW by the end of 2024. In 2019, the company proposed to shorten the book lives of another approximately 7,700 MW of coal capacity in North Carolina and Indiana.

Duke Energy will host an analyst call in early August 2020 to discuss second quarter 2020 financial results and other business and financial updates. The company will also host its inaugural Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investor day in October 2020.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy is transforming its customers' experience, modernizing the energy grid, generating cleaner energy and expanding natural gas infrastructure to create a smarter energy future for the people and communities it serves. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure unit's regulated utilities serve 7.8 million retail electric customers in six states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure unit distributes natural gas to 1.6 million customers in five states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky. The Duke Energy Renewables unit operates wind and solar generation facilities across the U.S., as well as energy storage and microgrid projects.

Duke Energy was named to Fortune's 2020 "World's Most Admired Companies" list and Forbes' "America's Best Employers" list. More information about the company is available at duke-energy.com. The Duke Energy News Center contains news releases, fact sheets, photos, videos and other materials. Duke Energy's illumination features stories about people, innovations, community topics and environmental issues. Follow Duke Energy on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.

Forward-Looking Information

This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and can often be identified by terms and phrases that include "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "estimate," "expect," "continue," "should," "could," "may," "plan," "project," "predict," "will," "potential," "forecast," "target," "guidance," "outlook" or other similar terminology. Various factors may cause actual results to be materially different than the suggested outcomes within forward-looking statements; accordingly, there is no assurance that such results will be realized. These factors include, but are not limited to:

• The impact of the COVID-19 electricity demand shift on operations and revenues;
• State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements, including those related to climate change, as well as rulings that affect cost and investment recovery or have an impact on rate structures or market prices;
• The extent and timing of costs and liabilities to comply with federal and state laws, regulations and legal requirements related to coal ash remediation, including amounts for required closure of certain ash impoundments, are uncertain and difficult to estimate;
• The ability to recover eligible costs, including amounts associated with coal ash impoundment retirement obligations and costs related to significant weather events, and to earn an adequate return on investment through rate case proceedings and the regulatory process;
• The costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities could prove to be more extensive than amounts estimated and all costs may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process;
• Costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims;
• Industrial, commercial and residential growth or decline in service territories or customer bases resulting from sustained downturns of the economy and the economic health of our service territories or variations in customer usage patterns, including energy efficiency and demand response efforts and use of alternative energy sources, such as self-generation and distributed generation technologies;
• Federal and state regulations, laws and other efforts designed to promote and expand the use of energy efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies, such as private solar and battery storage, in Duke Energy service territories could result in customers leaving the electric distribution system, excess generation resources as well as stranded costs;
• Advancements in technology;
• Additional competition in electric and natural gas markets and continued industry consolidation;
• The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of severe storms, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and tornadoes, including extreme weather associated with climate change;
• The ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers including direct or indirect effects to the company resulting from an incident that affects the U.S. electric grid or generating resources;
• The ability to obtain the necessary permits and approvals and to complete necessary or desirable pipeline expansion or infrastructure projects in our natural gas business;
• Operational interruptions to our natural gas distribution and transmission activities;
• The availability of adequate interstate pipeline transportation capacity and natural gas supply;
• The impact on facilities and business from a terrorist attack, cybersecurity threats, data security breaches, operational accidents, information technology failures or other catastrophic events, such as fires, explosions, pandemic health events or other similar occurrences;
• The inherent risks associated with the operation of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks, including the financial stability of third-party service providers;
• The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and interest rates and the ability to recover such costs through the regulatory process, where appropriate, and their impact on liquidity positions and the value of underlying assets;
• The results of financing efforts, including the ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including credit ratings, interest rate fluctuations, compliance with debt covenants and conditions and general market and economic conditions;
• Credit ratings of the Duke Energy Registrants may be different from what is expected;
• Declines in the market prices of equity and fixed-income securities and resultant cash funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans, other post-retirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trust funds;
• Construction and development risks associated with the completion of the Duke Energy Registrants' capital investment projects, including risks related to financing, obtaining and complying with terms of permits, meeting construction budgets and schedules and satisfying operating and environmental performance standards, as well as the ability to recover costs from customers in a timely manner, or at all;
• Changes in rules for regional transmission organizations, including FERC debates on coal and nuclear subsidies and new and evolving capacity markets, and risks related to obligations created by the default of other participants;
• The ability to control operation and maintenance costs;
• The level of creditworthiness of counterparties to transactions;
• The ability to obtain adequate insurance at acceptable costs;
• Employee workforce factors, including the potential inability to attract and retain key personnel;
• The ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or distributions to Duke Energy Corporation holding company (the Parent);
• The performance of projects undertaken by our nonregulated businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
• The effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies;
• The impact of U.S. tax legislation to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and our credit ratings;
• The impacts from potential impairments of goodwill or equity method investment carrying values; and
• The ability to implement our business strategy, including enhancing existing technology systems.
• Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in the Duke Energy Registrants' reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC's website at sec.gov. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than described. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and the Duke Energy Registrants expressly disclaim an obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News