Energy hikes hit poor the hardest

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Hydro Court Ruling affirms the Public Utilities Board exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a First Nations rate class, overturning an electricity rates appeal tied to geography, poverty, and regulatory authority in Manitoba.

Key Points

A decision holding the PUB lacked authority to create a First Nations rate class, restoring uniform electricity pricing.

✅ Court says PUB exceeded jurisdiction creating on-reserve rate

✅ Equalized electricity pricing reaffirmed across Manitoba

✅ Geography, not poverty, found decisive in unlawful rate class

Manitoba Hydro was wrongly forced to create a new rate class for electricity customers living on First Nations, the Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled. 

The court decided the Public Utilities Board "exceeded its jurisdiction" by mandating Indigenous customers on First Nations could have a different electricity rate from other Manitobans. 

The board made the order in 2018, which exempted those customers from the general rate increase that year of 3.6 per cent.

"The directive constituted the creation and implementation of general social policy, an area outside of the PUB's jurisdiction and encroaching into areas that are better suited to the federal and provincial government," says the decision, which was released Tuesday.

Hydro's appeal of the PUB's decision went to court earlier this year.

At the time, the Crown corporation acknowledged many Indigenous people on First Nations live in poverty, but it argued the Public Utilities Board was overstepping its authority in trying to address the issue by creating a new rate class.

It also argued it was against provincial law to charge different rates in different areas of the province.

The PUB, however, insisted that legislation gives it the right to decide which factors are relevant when considering electricity prices, such as social issues. 

Special Manitoba Hydro rate class needed to offset challenges of living on First Nations, appeal court hears
Manitoba Hydro can appeal order to create special First Nation rate
The board had heard evidence that some customers were making "unacceptable" sacrifices to keep the lights on each month.

Decision 'heavy-handed': AMC
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, an intervener in the appeal, had backed the utility board's position. It said on-reserve customers are disproportionately vulnerable to rate hikes over time.

Grand Chief Arlen Dumas said Wednesday he was surprised by the court's ruling. 

He argued Indigenous people are unduly excluded in the setting of electricity rates in Manitoba.

"I will be speaking with my federal and provincial counterparts on how we deal with this issue, because I think it's the wrong [decision]. It's heavy-handed and we need to address it."

The appeal court judges said there is past precedent for setting equal electricity rates, regardless of where customers live. Legislation to that effect was made in the early 2000s and a few years ago, the PUB recognized that geographical limitations should not be imposed on a class of customers.

Since the board's new order didn't extend the same savings to First Nations members who don't live on reserve but face similar financial circumstances, it is clear the deciding factor was geography, rather than poverty or treaty status, the judges said.

Manitoba Hydro temporarily cutting 200 jobs, many of them front-line workers
"In my view, the PUB erred in law when it created an on-reserve class based solely on a geographic region of the province in which customers are located," the decision read.

While Manitoba Hydro objected to the PUB's order in 2018, it still devoted money to create the new customer class.

Spokesperson Bruce Owen said the utility is still studying the impact of the court's decision, but it appreciates the ruling.  

"We all recognize that many people on First Nations have challenges, but our argument was solely on whether or not the PUB had the authority to create a special rate class based on where people live."

Owen added that Hydro recognizes electricity rates can be a hardship on individuals facing poverty. He said those considerations are part of the discussions the corporation has with the utilities board.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Nuclear Refurbishment Economic Impact powers growth as Bruce Power's MCR and OPG's Darlington unit 2 refurbishment drive jobs, supply-chain spending, medical isotopes, clean baseload power, and lower GHG emissions across Ontario and Canada.

Key Points

It is the measured gains from Bruce Power's MCR and OPG's Darlington refurbishment in jobs, taxes, and clean energy.

✅ CAD7.6B-10.6B impact in Ontario; CAD8.1B-11.6B nationwide.

✅ Supports 60% nuclear supply, jobs, and medical isotopes.

✅ MCR and Darlington cut GHGs, drive innovation and supply chains.

The 13-year Major Component Replacement (MCR) project being undertaken as part of Bruce Power's life-extension programme, which officially began with a reactor taken offline earlier this year, will inject billions of dollars into Ontario's economy, a new report has found. Meanwhile, the major project to refurbish Darlington unit 2 remains on track for completion in 2020, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has announced.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) said its report, Major Component Replacement Project Economic Impact Analysis, outlines an impartial assessment of the MCR programme and related manufacturing contracts across the supply chain. The report was commissioned by Bruce Power.

"Our analysis shows that Bruce Power's MCR project is a fundamental contributor to the Ontario economy. More broadly, the life-extension of the Bruce Power facility will provide quality jobs for Ontarians, produce a stable supply of medical isotopes for the world's healthcare system, and deliver economic benefit through direct and indirect spending," OCC President and CEO Rocco Rossi said."As Ontario's energy demand grows, nuclear truly is the best option to meet those demands with reduced GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions. The Bruce Power MCR Project will not only drive economic growth in the region, it will position Ontario as a global leader in nuclear innovation and expertise."

According to the OCC's economic analysis, the MCR's economic impact on Ontario is estimated to be between CAD7.6 billion (USD5.6 billion) and CAD10.6 billion. Nationally, its economic impact is estimated to be between CAD8.1 billion and CAD11.6 billion. It estimates that the federal government will receive CAD144 million in excise tax and CAD1.2 billion in income tax, while the provincial government will receive CAD300 million and CAD437 million. Ontario’s municipal governments are estimated to receive a collective CAD192 million in tax.

The nuclear industry currently provides 60% of Ontario’s daily energy supply needs, with Pickering life extension plans bolstering system reliability, and is made up of over 200 companies and more than 60,000 jobs across a diversity of sectors such as operations, manufacturing, skilled trades, healthcare, and research and innovation, the report notes.

Greg Rickford, Ontario's minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, and minister of Indigenous Affairs, said continued use of the Bruce generating station which recently set an operating record would create jobs and advance Ontario’s nuclear industrial sector. "It is great to see projects like the MCR that help make Ontario the best place to invest, do business and find a job," he said.

The MCR is part of Bruce Power's overall life-extension programme, which started in January 2016. Bruce 6 will be the first of the six Candu units to undergo an MCR which will take 46 months to complete and give the unit a further 30-35 years of operational life. The total cost of refurbishing Bruce units 3-8 is estimated at about CAD8 billion, in addition to CAD5 billion on other activities under the life-extension programme, which is scheduled for completion by 2053.

Darlington milestones

OPG's long-term refurbishment programme at Darlington, alongside SMR plans for the site announced by the province, began with unit 2 in 2016 after years of detailed planning and preparation. Reassembly of the reactor, which was disassembled last year, is scheduled for completion this spring, and the unit 2 refurbishment project remains on track for completion in early 2020. At the same time, final preparations are under way for the start of the refurbishment of unit 3.

"We've entered a critical phase on the project," Senior Vice President of Nuclear Refurbishment Mike Allen said. "OPG and our project partners continue to work as an integrated team to meet our commitments on Unit 2 and our other three reactors at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station."

A 350-tonne generator stator manufactured by GE in Poland is currently in transit to Canada, where it will be installed in Darlington 3's turbine hall as the province also breaks ground on its first SMR this year.

The 10-year Darlington refurbishment is due to be completed in 2026, while the province plans to refurbish Pickering B to extend output beyond that date.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Existing Nuclear Reactor Lifetime Extension sustains carbon-free electricity, supports deep decarbonization, and advances net zero climate goals by preserving the US nuclear fleet, stabilizing the grid, and complementing advanced reactors.

Key Points

Extending licenses keeps carbon-free nuclear online, stabilizes grid, and accelerates decarbonization toward net zero.

✅ Preserves 24/7 carbon-free baseload to meet climate targets

✅ Avoids emissions and replacement costs from premature retirements

✅ Complements advanced reactors; reduces capital and material needs

Nuclear power is the single largest source of carbon-free energy in the United States and currently provides nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electrical demand. As a result, many analyses have investigated the potential of future nuclear energy contributions in addressing climate change and investing in carbon-free electricity across the sector. However, few assess the value of existing nuclear power reactors.

Research led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Earth scientist Son H. Kim, with the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI), a partnership between PNNL and the University of Maryland, has added insight to the scarce literature and is the first to evaluate nuclear energy for meeting deep decarbonization goals amid rising credit risks for nuclear power identified by Moody's. Kim sought to answer the question: How much do our existing nuclear reactors contribute to the mission of meeting the country’s climate goals, both now and if their operating licenses were extended?

As the world races to discover solutions for reaching net zero as part of the global energy transition now underway, Kim’s report quantifies the economic value of bringing the existing nuclear fleet into the year 2100. It outlines its significant contributions to limiting global warming.

Plants slated to close by 2050 could be among the most important players in a challenge requiring all available carbon-free technology solutions—emerging and existing—alongside renewable electricity in many regions, the report finds. New nuclear technology also has a part to play, and its contributions could be boosted by driving down construction costs.  

“Even modest reductions in capital costs could bring big climate benefits,” said Kim. “Significant effort has been incorporated into the design of advanced reactors to reduce the use of all materials in general, such as concrete and steel because that directly translates into reduced costs and carbon emissions.”

Nuclear power reactors face an uncertain future, and some utilities face investor pressure to release climate reports as well.
The nuclear power fleet in the United States consists of 93 operating reactors across 28 states. Most of these plants were constructed and deployed between 1970-1990. Half of the fleet has outlived its original operating license lifetime of 40 years. While most reactors have had their licenses renewed for an additional 20 years, and some for another 20, the total number of reactors that will receive a lifetime extension to operate a full 80 years from deployment is uncertain.

Other countries also rely on nuclear energy. In France, for example, nuclear energy provides 70 percent of the country’s power supply. They and other countries must also consider extending the lifetime, retiring, or building new, modern reactors while navigating Canadian climate policy implications for electricity grids. However, the U.S. faces the potential retirement of many reactors in a short period—this could have a far stronger impact than the staggered closures other countries may experience.

“Our existing nuclear power plants are aging, and with their current 60-year lifetimes, nearly all of them will be gone by 2050. It’s ironic. We have a net zero goal to reach by 2050, yet our single largest source of carbon-free electricity is at risk of closure, as seen in New Zealand's electricity transition debates,“ said Kim.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News