German nuclear tax to cost billions

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

Texas PUC Appointments signal post-storm reform as Gov. Greg Abbott taps Peter Lake and advances Will McAdams for Senate confirmation, affecting ERCOT oversight, grid reliability, wholesale power pricing, and securitization for co-ops.

Key Points

Texas PUC appointments add Peter Lake and Will McAdams to steer ERCOT, grid reliability, and market policy.

✅ Peter Lake nominated chair to replace Arthur D'Andrea.

✅ Will McAdams advances toward Senate confirmation.

✅ Focus on ERCOT oversight, price cap debate, grid resilience.

A new set of Texas electricity regulators began to take shape Monday, as Gov. Greg Abbott nominated a finance expert to be the next chairman of the Public Utility Commission while his earlier choice of a PUC member moved toward Senate confirmation.

The Republican governor put forward Peter Lake of Austin, who has spent more than five years as an Abbott appointee to the Texas Water Development Board, as his second commission pick in as many weeks.

“I am confident he will bring a fresh perspective and trustworthy leadership to the PUC,” Abbott said of Lake, who once worked as a trader of futures and derivatives for a firm belonging to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and more recently has eagerly promoted bonds for the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas.

“Peter’s expertise in the Texas energy industry and business management will make him an asset to the agency,” Abbott, who has touted grid readiness in recent months, said in a written statement. “I urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Peter’s appointment.”

On Monday, the Senate appeared to be moving quickly to confirm Abbott’s April 1 selection for the PUC, Will McAdams, president of Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas and a former legislative aide who helped write policy for regulated industries such as electricity.

McAdams was among the 129 nominees that the Senate Nominations Committee voted out, 8-0. His nomination heads now to the Senate floor.

All three of Abbott’s handpicked PUC commissioners who were in place before and during February’s calamitous winter storm have since quit or said they’re resigning, even as Sierra Club criticism of Abbott's demands intensified in the aftermath.

February’s polar vortex left in its wake physical and financial wreckage after a nonprofit grid operator answering to the PUC, amid calls for market reforms to avoid blackouts, shut off electricity to more than 4 million Texans, causing the deaths of at least 125 people, 13 of them in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday named Will McAdams to the embattled Public Utility Commission of Texas. McAdams is a construction industry lobbyist with strong ties to the GOP-controlled Legislature. In Feb. 17 file photo, winter storm's snowfall andn large electrical transmission lines in South Arlington are pictured.

In a 45-minute confirmation hearing, McAdams, as lawmakers discussed ways to improve electricity reliability statewide, drew praise – and few tough questions.

McAdams, who previously worked for three GOP senators, testified that had he been on the commission in February, he would not have kept in place a controversial, $9,000-per-megawatt hour price cap on wholesale power for about 32 hours on Feb. 18-19.

“I don’t see myself making that decision,” he said.

McAdams, though, hedged slightly, saying he’s not privy to all information that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, and the PUC may have had at their disposal during the crisis.

The comments were notable because Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate have fought with Abbott and the House over $16 billion in overcharges that, according to an independent market monitor, wrongly accrued near the end of the Feb. 15-19 outages.

Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, said the commission’s former chairwoman, DeAnn Walker, and Bill Magness, president of ERCOT, decided to hold the high cap in place because there “was still great concern about grid stability, even though there was significant reserves.”

He pressed McAdams to call that incorrect, which McAdams did.

“Given the fact pattern that I’m privy to, senator,” it wasn’t the right move, he said. “But again, there may be other facts out there. There probably are.”

McAdams acknowledged many homeowners and businesses were traumatized.

“The public’s confidence in the ability of the PUC to effectively regulate our electric markets has been badly damaged and shaken,” he said.

McAdams spoke favorably of renewable energy, calling wind and solar “absolutely valuable resources,” as the electricity sector faces profound change nationwide. To whatever extent those are not available, the PUC should “firm that up” with “dispatchable forms of generation,” such as gas, coal and nuclear, McAdams said.

He also called for lawmakers to consider providing electricity market bailout through “securitization,” or low-interest bond financing, to rural electric co-ops that were unable to pay the massive wholesale power bills they racked up during the February crisis.

“It would prevent those systems from having to front-load those costs onto their own members and smooth that out over a term of years,” while preventing an “uplift” of costs to other market participants who wisely hedged against soaring prices, McAdams said.

Noting that more than 400 bills have been filed to change ERCOT and how it’s governed, and as Texans prepare to vote on grid modernization funding this year, McAdams told the Senate panel, “It is clear to me that the Legislature wants meaningful changes to the status quo – to ensure that something positive comes out of this tragedy.”

Lake, who if confirmed by the Senate would replace Arthur D’Andrea as PUC chairman, grew up in Tyler. He attended prep school in New England and earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago and a master of business administration degree from Stanford University.

He then worked for a commodities trading firm, a behavioral health company and as a business consultant before he became director of business development for Tyler-based Lake Ronel Oil Co. in 2014.

In late 2015, Abbott named Lake to the Texas Water Development Board and in February 2018 picked him to be the chairman of the three-member board that seeks to ensure water supplies for a fast-growing state.

Lake has steered the water board as it rolled out additional loans for water projects, approved by the Legislature and voters in 2013, and took the lead after Hurricane Harvey on flood control planning and infrastructure financing.

He’s posted exuberantly on Twitter as he toured agricultural water installations, lakes in West Texas and river authorities.

If confirmed, Lake and McAdams each would make $189,500 a year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

DOE Wind Energy Funding backs 13 R&D projects advancing offshore wind, distributed energy, and utility-scale turbines, including microgrids, battery storage, nacelle and blade testing, tall towers, and rural grid integration across the United States.

Key Points

DOE Wind Energy Funding is a $28M R&D effort in offshore, distributed, and utility-scale wind to lower cost and risk.

✅ $6M for rural microgrids, storage, and grid integration.

✅ $7M for offshore R&D, nacelle and long-blade testing.

✅ Up to $10M demos; $5M for tall tower technology.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced that in order to advance wind energy in the U.S., 13 projects have been selected to receive $28 million. Project topics focus on technology development while covering distributed, offshore wind growth and utility-scale wind found on land.

The selections were announced by the DOE’s Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Daniel R. Simmons, at the American Wind Energy Association Offshore Windpower Conference in Boston, as New York's offshore project momentum grows nationwide.

Wind Project Awards

According to the DOE, four Wind Innovations for Rural Economic Development projects will receive a total of $6 million to go toward supporting rural utilities via facilitating research drawing on U.K. wind lessons for deployment that will allow wind projects to integrate with other distributed energy resources.

These endeavors include:

Bergey WindPower (Norman, Oklahoma) working on developing a standardized distributed wind/battery/generator micro-grid system for rural utilities;

Electric Power Research Institute (Palo Alto, California) working on developing modeling and operations for wind energy and battery storage technologies, as large-scale projects in New York progress, that can both help boost wind energy and facilitate rural grid stability;

Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa) working on optimization models and control algorithms to help rural utilities balance wind and other energy resources; and

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Arlington, Virginia) providing the development of standardized wind engineering options to help rural-area adoption of wind.

Another six projects are to receive a total of $7 million to facilitate research and development in offshore wind, as New York site investigations advance, with these projects including:

Clemson University (North Charleston, South Carolina) improving offshore-scale wind turbine nacelle testing via a “hardware-in-the-loop capability enabling concurrent mechanical, electrical and controller testing on the 7.5-megawatt dynamometer at its Wind Turbine Drivetrain Testing Facility to accelerate 1 GW on the grid progress”; and

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (Boston) upgrading its Wind Technology Testing Center to facilitate structural testing of 85- to 120-meter-long (roughly 278- to 393-foot-long) blades, as BOEM lease requests expand, among other projects.

Additionally, two offshore wind technology demonstration projects will receive up to $10 million for developing initiatives connected to reducing wind energy risk and cost. One last project will also be granted $5 million for the development of tall tower technology that can help overcome restrictions associated with transportation.

“These projects will be instrumental in driving down technology costs and increasing consumer options for wind across the United States as part of our comprehensive energy portfolio,” said Simmons.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Energy Pricing Factors span electricity generation, transmission, and distribution costs, plus natural gas supply-demand, renewables, seasonal peaks, and wholesale pricing effects across residential, commercial, and industrial customers, usage patterns, weather, and grid constraints.

Key Points

They are the costs and market forces driving electricity and natural gas prices, from generation to delivery and demand.

✅ Generation, transmission, distribution shape electricity rates

✅ Gas prices hinge on supply, storage, imports/exports

✅ Demand shifts: weather, economy, and fuel alternatives

There are a lot of factors that affect energy prices globally. What’s included in the price to heat homes and supply them with electricity may be a lot more than some people may think.

Electricity
Generating electricity is the largest component of its price, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Generation accounts for 56% of the price of electricity, while distribution and transmission account for 31% and 13% respectively.

Homeowners and businesses pay more for electricity than industrial companies, and U.S. electricity prices have recently surged, highlighting broader inflationary pressures. This is because industrial companies can take electricity at higher voltages, reducing transmission costs for energy companies.

“Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity,” EIA explains.

NYSEG said based on the average use of 600 kilowatt-hours per month, its customers spent the most money on delivery and transition charges in 2020, 57% or about $42, and residential electricity bills increased 5% in 2022 after inflation, according to national data. They also spent on average 35% (~$26) on supply charges and 8% (~$6) on surcharges.

Electricity prices are usually higher in the summer. Why? Because energy companies use sources of electricity that cost more money. It used to be that renewable sources, like solar and wind, were the most expensive sources of energy but increased technological advances have changed this, according to the International Energy Agency’s 2021 World Energy Outlook.

“In most markets, solar PV or wind now represents the cheapest available source of new electricity generation. Clean energy technology is becoming a major new area for investment and employment – and a dynamic arena for international collaboration and competition,” the report said.

Natural gas
The price of natural gas is driven by supply and demand. If there is more supply, prices are generally lower. If there is not as much supply, prices are generally higher the EIA explains. On the other side of the equation, more demand can also increase the price and less demand can decrease the price.

High natural gas prices mean people turn their home thermostats down a few degrees to save money, so the EIA said reduced demand can encourage companies to produce more natural gas, which would in turn help lower the cost. Lower prices will sometimes cause companies to reduce their production, therefore causing the price to rise.

The three major supply factors that affect prices: the amount of natural gas produced, how much is stored, and the volume of gas imported and exported. The three major demand factors that affect price are: changes in winter/summer weather, economic growth, and the broader energy crisis dynamics, as well as how much other fuels are available and their price, said EIA.

To think the price of natural gas is higher when the economy is thriving may sound counterintuitive but that’s exactly what happens. The EIA said this is because of increases in demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Electricity Rate Overhaul proposes a fixed fee and lower per-kWh rates to boost electrification, renewables, and grid reliability, while CPUC weighs impacts on conservation, low-income customers, and time-of-use pricing across the state.

Key Points

A proposal to add fixed fees and cut per-kWh prices to drive electrification, support renewables, and balance grid costs.

✅ Fixed monthly fee plus lower volumetric per-kWh charges

✅ Aims to accelerate EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification

✅ CPUC review weighs equity, conservation, and grid reliability

California is contemplating a significant overhaul to its electricity rate structure that could bring major changes to electric bills statewide, a move that has ignited debate among environmentalists and politicians alike. The proposed modifications, spearheaded by the California Energy Commission (CEC), would introduce a fixed fee on electric bills and lower the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) used.

Motivations for the Change

Proponents of the plan argue that it would incentivize Californians to transition to electric appliances and vehicles, a critical aspect of the state's ambitious climate goals. They reason that a lower per-unit cost would make electricity a more attractive option for applications like home heating and transportation, which are currently dominated by natural gas and gasoline. Additionally, they believe the plan would spur investment in renewable energy sources and distributed generation, ultimately leading to a cleaner electricity grid.

California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The transportation sector is the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and electrification is considered a key strategy for reducing emissions. A 2021 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that electrifying all California vehicles and buildings could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2020 levels.

Concerns and Potential Impacts

Opponents of the proposal, including some consumer rights groups, express apprehensions that it would discourage conservation efforts. They argue that with a lower per-kWh cost, Californians would have less motivation to reduce their electricity consumption. Additionally, they raise concerns that the income-based fixed charges could disproportionately burden low-income households, who may struggle to afford the base charge regardless of their overall electricity consumption.

A recent study by the CEC suggests that the impact on most Californians would be negligible, even as regulators face calls for action over soaring bills from ratepayers across the state. The report predicts that the average household's electricity bill would change by less than $5 per month under the proposed system. However, some critics argue that this study may not fully account for the potential behavioral changes that could result from the new rate structure.

Similar Initiatives and National Implications

California is not the only state exploring changes to its electricity rates to promote clean energy. Hawaii and New York have also implemented similar programs to encourage consumers to use electricity during off-peak hours. These time-varying rates, also known as time-of-use rates, can help reduce strain on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.

The California proposal has garnered national attention as other states grapple with similar challenges in balancing clean energy goals with affordability concerns amid soaring electricity prices in California and beyond. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. power sector.

The Road Ahead

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is reviewing the proposal and anticipates making a decision later this year, with a potential income-based flat-fee structure under consideration. The CPUC will likely consider the plan's potential benefits and drawbacks, including its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, electricity costs for consumers, and the overall reliability of the grid, even as some lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in the legislature.

The decision on California's electricity rates is merely one piece of the puzzle in the fight against climate change. However, it is a significant one, with the potential to shape the state's energy landscape for years to come, including the future of residential rooftop solar markets and investments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News