Crystal River plant repairs continue

European Energy Crisis shocks markets as Russia slashes gas via Nord Stream, spiking prices and triggering rationing, LNG imports, storage shortfalls, and emergency measures to secure energy security before a harsh winter.

Key Points

Europe-wide gas shock from reduced Russian flows drives price spikes, rationing risk, LNG reliance, and emergency action.

✅ Nord Stream cuts deepen supply insecurity and storage gaps

✅ LNG imports rise but terminal capacity and shipping are tight

✅ Policy tools: rationing, subsidies, demand response, coal restarts

As Russian gas cutoffs upend European energy security, the continent is struggling to cope with what experts say is one of its worst-ever energy crises—and it could still get much worse. 

For months, European leaders have been haunted by the prospect of losing Russia’s natural gas supply, which accounts for some 40 percent of European imports and has been a crucial energy lifeline for the continent. That nightmare is now becoming a painful reality as Moscow slashes its flows in retaliation for Europe’s support for Ukraine, dramatically increasing energy prices and forcing many countries to resort to emergency plans, including emergency measures to limit electricity prices in some cases, and as backup energy suppliers such as Norway and North Africa are failing to step up.

“This is the most extreme energy crisis that has ever occurred in Europe,” said Alex Munton, an expert on global gas markets at Rapidan Energy Group, a consultancy. “Europe [is] looking at the very real prospect of not having sufficient gas when it’s most needed, which is during the coldest part of the year.”

“Prices have shot through the roof,” added Munton, who noted that European natural gas prices—nearly $50 per MMBTu—have eclipsed U.S. price rises by nearly tenfold, and that rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears in the current market. “That is an extraordinarily high price to be paying for natural gas, and really there is no immediate way out from here.” 

Many officials and energy experts worry that the crisis will only deepen after Nord Stream 1, the largest gas pipeline from Russia to Europe, is taken down for scheduled maintenance this week. Although the pipeline is supposed to be under repair for only 10 days, the Kremlin’s history of energy blackmail and weaponization has stoked fears that Moscow won’t turn it back on—leaving heavily reliant European countries in the lurch. (Russia’s second pipeline to Germany, Nord Stream 2, was killed in February as Russian President Vladimir Putin prepared to invade Ukraine, leaving Nord Stream 1 as the biggest direct gas link between Russia and Europe’s biggest economy.)

“Everything is possible. Everything can happen,” German economy minister Robert Habeck told Deutschlandfunk on Saturday. “It could be that the gas flows again, maybe more than before. It can also be the case that nothing comes.”

That would spell trouble for the upcoming winter, when demand for energy surges and having sufficient natural gas is necessary for heating. European countries typically rely on the summer months to refill their gas storage facilities. And at a time of war, when the continent’s future gas supply is uncertain, having that energy cushion is especially crucial.

If Russia’s prolonged disruptions continue, experts warn of a difficult winter: one of potential rationing, industrial shutdowns, and even massive economic dislocation. British officials, who just a few months ago warned of soaring power bills for consumers, are now warning of even worse, despite a brief fall to pre-Ukraine war levels in gas prices earlier in the year.

Europe could face a “winter of discontent,” said Helima Croft, a managing director at RBC Capital Markets. “Rationing, industrial shut-ins—all of that is looming.”

Unrest has already been brewing, with strikes erupting across the continent as households struggle under the pressures of spiraling costs of living and inflationary pressures. Some of this discontent has also had knock-on effects in the energy market. In Norway, the European Union’s biggest supplier of natural gas after Russia, mass strikes in the oil and gas industries last week forced companies to shutter production, sending further shockwaves throughout Europe.

European countries are at risk of descending into “very, very strong conflict and strife because there is no energy,” Frans Timmermans, the vice president of the European Commission, told the Guardian. “Putin is using all the means he has to create strife in our societies, so we have to brace ourselves for a very difficult period.”

The pain of the crisis, however, is perhaps being felt most clearly in Germany, which has been forced to turn to a number of energy-saving measures, including rationing heated water and closing swimming pools. To cope with the crunch, Berlin has already entered the second phase of its three-stage emergency gas plan; last week, it also moved to bail out its energy giants amid German utility troubles that have been financially slammed by Russian cutoffs. 

But it’s not just Germany. “This is happening all across Europe,” said Olga Khakova, an expert on European energy security at the Atlantic Council, who noted that France has also announced plans to nationalize the EDF power company as it buckles under mounting economic losses, and the EU outlines gas price cap strategies to temper volatility. “The challenging part is how much can these governments provide in support to their energy consumers, to these companies? And what is that breaking point?”

The situation has also complicated many countries’ climate goals, even as some call it a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for Europe. In late June, Germany, Italy, Austria, and the Netherlands announced they would restart old coal power plants as they grapple with shrinking supplies. 

The potential outcomes that European nations are grappling with reveal how this crisis is occurring on a scale that has only been seen in times of war, Munton said. In the worst-case scenario, “we’re talking about rationing gas supplies, and this is not something that Europe has had to contend with in any other time than the wartime,” he said. “That’s essentially where things have got to now. This is an energy war.”

They also underscore the long and painful battle that Europe will continue to face in weaning itself off Russian gas. Despite the continent’s eagerness to leave Moscow’s supply behind, experts say Europe will likely remain trapped in this spiraling crisis until it can develop the infrastructure for greater energy independence—and that could take years. U.S. gas, shipped by tanker, is one option, but that requires new terminals to receive the gas and U.S. energy impacts remain a factor for policymakers. New pipelines take even longer to build—and there isn’t a surfeit of eligible suppliers.

Until then, European leaders will continue to scramble to secure enough supplies—and can only hope for mild weather. The “worst-case scenario is people having to choose between eating and heating come winter,” Croft said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

OEB Disconnection Ban shields Ontario residential customers under the stay-at-home order, pausing electricity distributor shutoffs for non-payment and linking COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program credits for small businesses, charities, and overdue utility bills.

Key Points

A pause on electricity shutoff notices during Ontario's stay-at-home order, with COVID-19 bill credits for customers.

✅ Distributors cannot issue residential disconnection notices.

✅ Applies through the stay-at-home order timeline.

✅ CEAP credits: $750 residential; $1,500 small biz and charities.

With Ontario now into the third province-wide lockdown, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) has promised residents won't have to worry about their power being shut off.

On April 8, the Province issued the third stay-at-home order in the last 13 months which is scheduled to last for 28 days until at least May 6, as electricity rates and policies continue to shift.

On April 30, the annual winter disconnection ban is set to expire, meaning electricity distributors like Hydro One would normally be permitted to issue disconnection notices for non-payment as early as 14 days before the end of the ban.

However, the OEB has announced changes for electricity consumers that prohibit electricity distributors from issuing disconnection notices to residential customers for the entirety of the stay-at-home order.

Additionally, the COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program is available for residential, small business, and registered charity customers who have overdue amounts on their electricity or gas bills as a result of the pandemic, complementing support for electric bills introduced during COVID-19, and the fixed COVID-19 hydro rate that helped stabilize costs.

Those who meet these criteria are eligible for credits up to a maximum of $750 for residential customers and $1,500 for small businesses and charities, alongside earlier moves to set an off-peak price to ease costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Plant Climate Risks span flood risk, heat stress, and water scarcity, threatening operations, safety systems, and steam generation; resilience depends on mitigation investments, cooling-water management, and adaptive maintenance strategies.

Key Points

Climate-driven threats to nuclear plants: floods, heat, and water stress requiring resilience and mitigation.

✅ Flooding threats to safety and cooling systems

✅ Heat stress reduces thermal efficiency and output

✅ Water scarcity risks limit cooling capacity

Climate change can affect every aspect of nuclear plant operations like fuel handling, power and steam generation and the need for resilient power systems planning, maintenance, safety systems and waste processing, the credit rating agency said.

However, the ultimate credit impact will depend upon the ability of plant operators to invest in carbon-free electricity and other mitigating measures to manage these risks, it added.
Close proximity to large water bodies increase the risk of damage to plant equipment that helps ensure safe operation, the agency said in a note.

Moody’s noted that about 37 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. nuclear capacity is expected to have elevated exposure to flood risk and 48 GW elevated exposure to combined rising heat, extreme heat costs and water stress caused by climate change.

Parts of the Midwest and southern Florida face the highest levels of heat stress, while the Rocky Mountain region and California face the greatest reduction in the availability of future water supply, illustrating the need for adapting power generation to drought strategies, it said.

Nuclear plants seeking to extend their operations by 20, or even 40 years, beyond their existing 40-year licenses in support of sustaining U.S. nuclear power and decarbonization face this climate hazard and may require capital investment adjustments, Moody’s said, as companies such as Duke Energy climate report respond to investor pressure for climate transparency.

“Some of these investments will help prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events, highlighting that the US electric grid is not designed for climate impacts today.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Site C and Clean Energy Policy shapes B.C.'s power mix, affecting run-of-river hydro, net metering for rooftop solar, independent power producers, and surplus capacity forecasts tied to LNG Canada demand.

Key Points

BC Hydro's strategy centers on Site C, limiting new run-of-river projects and tightening net metering amid surplus power

✅ Site C adds long-term capacity with lower projected rates.

✅ Run-of-river IPP growth paused amid surplus forecasts.

✅ Net metering limits deter oversized rooftop solar.

Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. is celebrating the official commissioning today of what may be the last large run-of-river hydro project in B.C. for years to come.

The project – two new generating stations on the Upper Lillooet River and Boulder Creek in the Pemberton Valley – actually began producing power in 2017, but the official commissioning was delayed until Friday September 14.

Innergex, which earlier this year bought out Vancouver’s Alterra Power, invested $491 million in the two run-of-river hydro-electric projects, which have a generating capacity of 106 megawatts of power. The project has the generating capacity to power 39,000 homes.

The commissioning happened to coincide with an address by BC Hydro CEO Chris O’Riley to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade Friday, in which he provided an update on the progress of the $10.7-billion Site C dam project.

That project has put an end, for the foreseeable future, of any major new run-of-river projects like the Innergex project in Pemberton.

BC Hydro expects the new dam to produce a surplus of power when it is commissioned in November 2024, so no new clean energy power calls are expected for years to come.

Independent power producers aren’t the only ones who have seen a decline in opportunities to make money in B.C. providing renewable power, as the Siwash Creek project shows. So will homeowners who over-build their own solar power systems, in an attempt to make money from power sales.

There are about 1,300 homeowners in B.C. with rooftop solar systems, and when they produce surplus power, they can sell it to BC Hydro.

BC Hydro is amending the net metering program to discourage homeowners from over-building. In some cases, some howeowners have been generating 40% to 50% more power than they need.

“We were getting installations that were massively over-sized for their load, and selling this big quantity of power to us,” O’Riley said. “And that was never the idea of the program.”

Going forward, BC Hydro plans to place limits on how much power a homeowner can sell to BC Hydro.

BC Hydro has been criticized for building Site C when the demand for power has been generally flat, and reliance on out-of-province electricity has drawn scrutiny. But O’Riley said the dam isn’t being built for today’s generation, but the next.

“We’re not building Site C for today,” he said. “We have an energy surplus for the short term. We’re not even building it for 2024. We’re building it for the next 100 years.”

O’Riley acknowledged Site C dam has been a contentious and “extremely challenging” project. It has faced numerous court challenges, a late-stage review by the BC Utilities Commission, cost overruns, geotechnical problems and a dispute with the main contractors.

In a separate case, the province was ordered to pay $10 million over the denial of a Squamish power project, highlighting broader legal risk.

But those issues have been resolved, O’Riley said, and the project is back on track with a new construction schedule.

“As we move forward, we have a responsibility to deliver a project on time and against the new revised budget, and I’m confident the changes we’ve made are set up to do that,” O’Riley said.

Currently, there are about 3,300 workers employed on the dam project.

Despite criticisms that BC Hydro is investing in a legacy mega-project at a time when cost of wind and solar have been falling, O’Riley insisted that Site C was the best and lowest cost option.

“First, it’s the lowest cost option,” he said. “We expect over the first 20 years of Site C’s operating life, our customers will see rates 7% to 10% below what it would otherwise be using the alternatives.”

BC Hydro missed a critical window to divert the Peace River, something that can only be done in September, during lower river flows. That added a full year’s delay to the project.

O’Riley said BC Hydro had built in a one-year contingency into the project, so he expects the project can still be completed by 2024 – the original in-service target date. But the delay will add more than $2 billion to the last budget estimate, boosting the estimated capital cost from $8.3 billion to $10.7 billion.

Meeting the 2024 in-service target date could be important, if Royal Dutch Shell and its consortium partners make a final investment decision this year on the $40 billion LNG Canada project.

That project also has a completion target date of 2024, and would be a major new industrial customer with a substantial power draw for operations.

“If they make a decision to go forward, they will be a very big customer of BC Hydro,” O’Riley told Business in Vancouver. “They would be in our top three or four biggest customers.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nova Scotia Integrated Resource Plan evaluates NSPI supply options, UARB oversight, Muskrat Falls imports, coal retirements, wind and biomass expansion, transmission upgrades, storage, and least-cost pathways to decarbonize the grid for ratepayers.

Key Points

A 25-year roadmap assessing supply, imports, costs, and emissions to guide least-cost decarbonization for Nova Scotia.

✅ Compares wind, biomass, gas, imports, and storage costs

✅ Addresses coal retirements, emissions caps, and reliability

✅ Recommends transmission upgrades and Muskrat Falls utilization

Maintaining a viable electricity network requires good long-term planning and, as a recent grid operations report notes, ongoing operational improvements. The existing stock of generating assets can become obsolete through aging, changes in fuel prices or environmental considerations. Future changes in demand must be anticipated.

Periodically, an integrated resource plan is created to predict how all this will add up during the ensuing 25 years. That process is currently underway and is led by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and will be submitted for approval to the Utilities and Review Board (UARB).

Coal-fired plants are still the largest single source of electricity in Nova Scotia. They need to be replaced with more environmentally friendly sources when they reach the end of their useful lives. Other sources include wind, hydroelectricity from rivers, biomass, as seen in increased biomass use by NS Power, natural gas and imports from other jurisdictions.

Imports are used sparingly today but will be an important source when the electricity from Muskrat Falls comes on stream. That project has big capacity. It can produce all the power needed in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where Quebec's power ambitions influence regional flows, plus the amount already committed to Nova Scotia, and still have a lot left over.

Some sources of electricity are more valuable than others. The daily amount of power from wind and solar cannot be controlled. Fuel-based sources and hydro can.

Utilities make their profits by providing the capital necessary to build infrastructure. Most of the money is borrowed but a portion, typically 30 per cent, usually comes from NSPI or a sister company. On that they receive a rate of return of nine per cent. Nova Scotia can borrow money today at less than two per cent.

The largest single investment of that type is the $1.577-billion Maritime Link connecting power from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. It continues through to the New Brunswick border to facilitate exports to the United States. NSPI’s sister company, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML), is making nine per cent on $473 million of the cost.

There is little unexploited hydro capacity in Nova Scotia and there will not be any new coal-fired plants. Large-scale solar is not competitive in Nova Scotia’s climate. Nova Scotia’s needs would not accommodate the amount of nuclear capacity needed to be cost-effective, even as New Brunswick explores small reactors in its strategy.

So the candidates for future generating resources are wind, natural gas, biomass (though biomass criticism remains) and imports from other jurisdictions. Tidal is a promising opportunity but is still searching for a commercially viable technology. 

NSPI is commendably transparent about its process (irp.nspower.ca). At this stage there is little indication of the conclusions they are reaching but that will presumably appear in due course.

The mountains of detail might obscure the fact that NSPI is not an unbiased arbiter of choices for the future.

It is reported that they want to prematurely close the Trenton 5 coal plant in 2023-25. It is valued at $88.5 million. If it is closed early, ratepayers will still have to pay off the remaining value even though the plant will be idle. NSPI wants to plan a decommissioning of five of its other seven plants. There is a federal emissions constraint but retiring coal plants earlier than needed will cost ratepayers a lot.

Whenever those plants are closed, there will be a need for new sources of power. NSPI is proposing to plan for new investments in new transmission infrastructure to facilitate imports. Other possibilities would be additional wind farms, consistent with the shift to more wind and solar projects, thermal plants that burn natural gas or biomass, or storage for excess wind power that arrives before it can be used. The investment in storage could be anywhere from $20 million to $200 million.

These will add to the asset burden funded by ratepayers, even as industrial customers seek discounts while still paying for shuttered coal infrastructure.

External sources of new power will not provide NSPI the same opportunity: wind power by independent producers might be less expensive because they are willing to settle for less than nine per cent or because they are more efficient. Buying more power from Muskrat Falls will use transmission infrastructure we are already paying for. If a successful tidal technology is found, it will not be owned by NSPI or a sister company, which are no longer trying to perfect the technology.

This is not to suggest that NSPI would misrepresent the alternatives. But they can tilt the discussion in their favour. How tough will they be negotiating for additional Muskrat Falls power when it hurts their profits? Arguing for premature coal retirement on environmental grounds is fair game but whether the cost should be accepted is a political choice. 

NSPI is in a conflict of interest. We need a different process. An independent body should author the integrated resource plan. They should be fully informed about NSPI’s views.

They should communicate directly with Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat power, with independent wind producers, and with tidal power companies. The UARB cannot do any of these things.

The resulting plan should undergo the same UARB review that NSPI’s version would. This enhances the likelihood that Nova Scotians will get the least-cost alternative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News