Pilgrim power station failure probed

Ecofiscal Commission EV Policy Shift examines carbon pricing limits, endorsing signal boosters like subsidies, EV incentives, and coal bans, amid advisory changes and public pushback, to accelerate emissions cuts beyond market-based taxes and regulations.

Key Points

An updated stance recognizing carbon pricing limits and backing EV incentives, subsidies, and rules to reduce emissions.

✅ Carbon pricing plus subsidies, EV incentives

✅ Advisory shift; Jack Mintz departs

✅ Focus on emissions cuts, coal power bans

Something strange happened at the Ecofiscal Commission recently. Earlier this month, the carbon-tax advocacy group featured on its website as one of its advisers the renowned Canadian economist (and FP Comment columnist) Jack M. Mintz. The other day, suddenly and without fanfare, Mintz was gone from the website, and the commission’s advisory board.

Advisers come and advisers go, of course, but it turns out there was an impetus for Mintz’s departure. The Ecofiscal Commission in its latest report, dropped just before Canada Day, seemingly shifted from its position that carbon prices were so excellent at mimicking market forces that the tax could repeal and replace virtually the entire vast expensive gallimaufry of subsidies, caps, rules and regulations that are costing Canada a fortune in business and bureaucrats. As some Ecofiscal commissioners wrote just a few months ago, policies that “dictate specific technologies or methods for reducing emissions constrain private choice and increase costs” and were a bad idea.

But, in this latest report, the commission is now musing about the benefits of carbon-tax “signal boosters”: that is, EV subsidies and rules to, for instance, get people to start buying electric vehicles (EVs), as well as bans on coal-fired power. “Even well designed carbon pricing can have limitations,” rationalized the commission. Mintz said he had “misgivings” about the change of tack. He decided it best if he focus his advisory energies elsewhere.

It’s hard to blame the commission for falling like everyone else for the electric-car mania that’s sweeping the nation and the world. Electric cars offer a sexiness that dreary old carbon taxes can never hope to match — especially in light of a new Angus Reid poll last week that showed the majority of Canadians now want governments to shelve any plans for carbon taxes.

So far, because nobody’s really driving these miracle machines, said mania has been limited to breathless news reports about how the electric-vehicle revolution is about to rock our world. EVs comprise just two-tenths of a per cent of all passenger vehicles in North America, despite the media’s endless hype and efforts of green-obsessed governments to cover much of the price tag, like Ontario’s $14,000 rebate for Tesla buyers. In Europe, where virtue-signalling urban environmentalism is the coolest, they’re not feeling the vehicular electricity much more: EVs account for barely one per cent of personal vehicles in France, the U.K. and Germany. When Hong Kong cancelled Tesla rebates in April, sales fell to zero.

Going by the ballyhoo, you’d think EVs were at an inflection point and an unstoppable juggernaut. But it’s one that has yet to even get started. In his 2011 State of the Union address, then president Barack Obama predicted one million electric cars on the road by 2015. Four years later, there wasn’t even a third that many. California offered so many different subsidies for electric vehicles that low-income families could get rebates of up to US$13,500, but it still isn’t even close to reaching its target of having zero-emission vehicles make up 15 per cent of California auto sales by 2025, being stuck at three per cent since 2014. Ontario’s Liberal government last year announced to much laughter its plan to ensure that every family would have at least one zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) by 2024, and Quebec made a plan to make ZEVs worth 15.5 per cent of sales by 2020, while Ottawa’s 2035 EV mandate attracts criticism too. Let’s see how that’s going: Currently, ZEVs make up 0.16 per cent of new vehicle sales in Ontario and 0.38 per cent in Quebec.

The latest sensational but bogus EV news out last week was France’s government announcing the “end of the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040,” and Volvo apparently announcing that as of 2019, all its models would be “electric.” Both announcements made international headlines. Both are baloney. France provided no actual details about this plan (will it literally become a crime to sell a gasoline car? Will hybrids, run partly on gasoline, be allowed?), but more importantly, as automotive writer Ed Wiseman pointed out in The Guardian, a lot will happen in technology and automotive use over the next 23 years that France has no way to predict, with changes in self-driving cars, public car-sharing and fuel technologies. Imagine making rules for today’s internet back in 1994.

Volvo, meanwhile, looked to be recycling and repackaging years-old news to seize on today’s infatuation with electric vehicles to burnish its now Chinese-owned brand. Since 2010, Volvo’s plan has been to focus on engines that were partly electric, with electric turbochargers, but still based on gasoline. Volvo doesn’t actually have an all-electric model, but the gasoline-swigging engine of its popular XC90 SUV is, partly, electrical. When Volvo said all its models would in two years be “electric,” it meant this kind of engine, not that it was phasing out the internal-combustion gasoline engine. But that is what it wanted reporters to think, and judging by all the massive and inaccurate coverage, it worked.

The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars. Tesla, whose founder’s self-promotion had made the niche carmaker magically more valuable than powerhouses like Ford and GM, haemorrhaged US$12 billion in market value last week after tepid sales figures brought some investors back to Earth, even as the company’s new Model 3 began rolling off the line.

Not helping is that environmental claims about environmental cars are falling apart. In June, Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found that electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fuel-powered electricity sources, emit 50-per-cent more carbon than do internal-combustion engines. Still, the electric-vehicle hype not only continues unabated, it gets bigger and louder every day. If some car company figures out how to harness it, we’d finally have a real automotive revolution on our hands.

Kevin Libin, Financial Post

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Global Adjustment Appeal spotlights Ontario's electricity fee, regulatory charge vs tax debate, FIT contracts, green energy policy, and constitutional challenge as National Steel Car contests soaring power costs before the Ontario Superior Court.

Key Points

Court challenge over Ontario's global adjustment fee, disputing its status as a regulatory charge instead of a tax.

✅ Challenges classification of global adjustment as tax vs regulatory charge.

✅ Focuses on FIT contracts, renewable energy payments, power cost impacts.

✅ Appeals Ontario ruling; implications for ratepayers and policy.

A manufacturer of steel rail cars is pursuing an appeal after its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a major Ontario electricity fee was struck down earlier this year.

Lawyers for Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. filed a notice of appeal in July after Ontario Superior Court Justice Wendy Matheson ruled in June that an electricity fee known as the global adjustment charge was a regulatory charge, and not an unconstitutional tax used to finance policy goals, as National Steel Car alleges.

The company, the decision noted, began its legal crusade last year after seeing its electricity bills had “increased dramatically” since the Ontario government passed green energy legislation nearly a decade ago, and amid concerns that high electricity rates are hurting Ontario manufacturers.

Under that legislation, the judge wrote, “private suppliers of renewable energy were paid to ’feed in’ energy into Ontario’s electricity grid.” The contracts for these so-called “feed-in tariff” contracts, or FIT contracts, were the “primary focus” of the lawsuit.

“The applicant seeks a declaration that part of the amount it has paid for electricity is an unconstitutional tax rather than a valid regulatory charge,” the judge added. “More specifically, it challenges part of the Global Adjustment, which is a component of electricity pricing and incorporates obligations under FIT contracts.”

Chiefly representing the difference between Ontario’s market price for power and the guaranteed price owed to generators, global adjustment now makes up the bulk of the commodity cost of electricity in the province. The fee has risen over the past decade, amid calls to reject steep Nova Scotia rate hikes as well — costing electricity customers $37 billion in global adjustment from 2006 to 2014, according to the province’s auditor general — because of investments in the electricity grid and green-energy contracts, among other reasons.

National Steel Car argued the global adjustment is a tax, and an unconstitutional one at that because it violated a section of the Constitution Act requiring taxes to be authorized by the legislature. The company also said the imposition of the global adjustment broke an Ontario law requiring a referendum to be held for new taxes.

The province, Justice Matheson wrote, had argued “that it is plain and obvious that these applications will fail.” In a decision released in June, the judge granted motions to strike out National Steel Car’s applications.

“The Global Adjustment,” she added, “is not a tax because its purpose, in pith and substance, is not to tax, and it is a regulatory charge and therefore, again, not a tax.”

Now, National Steel Car is arguing that the judge erred in several ways, including in fact, “by finding that the FIT contracts must be paid, when they can be cancelled.”

There has been a change in government at Queen’s Park since National Steel Car first filed its lawsuit last year, and that change has put green energy contracts under fire. The Progressive Conservative government of new Premier Doug Ford has already made a number of decisions on the electricity file, such as moving to cancel and wind down more than 750 renewable energy contracts, as well as repealing the province’s Green Energy Act.

The Tories also struck a commission of inquiry into the province’s finances that warned the global adjustment “may be struck down as unconstitutional,” a warning delivered amid cases where Nova Scotia's regulator approved a 14% rate hike in a high-profile decision.

“There is a risk that a court may find the global adjustment is not a valid regulatory charge if shifting costs over a longer period of time inadvertently results in future ratepayers cross-subsidizing today’s ratepayers,” the commission’s report said.

A spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines said in an email that it would be “inappropriate to comment about the specifics of any case before the courts or currently under arbitration.”

National Steel Car is also prepared to fight its case all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, according to its lawyer.

“What is clear from our proceeding with the appeal is National Steel Car has every intention of seeing that lawsuit through to its conclusion if this government isn’t interested or prepared to reasonably settle it,” Jerome Morse said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Maritime Electric Hurricane Irma Response details utility crews aiding Turks and Caicos with power restoration, storm recovery, debris removal, and essential services, coordinated with Fortis Inc., despite limited equipment, heat, and over 1,000 downed poles.

Key Points

A utility mission restoring power and essential services in Turks and Caicos after Irma, led by Maritime Electric.

✅ Over 1,000 poles down; crews climbing without bucket trucks

✅ Restoring hospitals, water, and communications first

✅ Fortis Inc. coordination; 2-3 week deployment with follow-on crews

Maritime Electric has sent a crew to help in the clean up and power restoration of Turks and Caicos after the Caribbean island was hit by Hurricane Irma, a storm that also saw FPL's massive response across Florida.

They arrived earlier this week and are working on removing debris and equipment so when supplies arrive, power can be brought back online, and similar mutual aid deployments, including Canadian crews to Florida, have been underway as well.

Fortis Inc., the parent company for Maritime Electric operates a utility in Turks and Caicos.

Kim Griffin, spokesperson for Maritime Electric, said there are over 1000 poles that were brought down by the storm, mirroring Florida restoration timelines reported elsewhere.

"It's really an intense storm recovery," she said. 'Good spirits'

The crew is working with less heavy equipment than they are used to, climbing poles instead of using bucket trucks, in hot and humid weather.

Griffin said their focus is getting essential services restored as quckly as possible, similar to progress in Puerto Rico's restoration efforts following recent hurricanes.

The crew will be there for two or three weeks and Griffin said Maritime Electric may send another group, as seen with Ontario's deployment to Florida, to continue the job.

She said the team has been well received and is in "good spirits."

"The people around them have been very positive that they're there," she said.

"They've said it's just been overwhelming how kind and generous the people have been to them."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

US Termination of Ukraine Energy Grid Support signals a policy shift: USAID halts aid for grid restoration amid Russia attacks, impacting energy security, infrastructure resilience, winter readiness, and negotiations leverage with Moscow and allies.

Key Points

A US policy reversal ending USAID support for Ukraine's grid, impacting energy security, resilience, and leverage.

✅ USAID halt reduces funds for grid restoration and winter prep

✅ Policy shift may weaken Kyiv's leverage in talks with Russia

✅ Ukraine seeks EU, IFIs, private capital for energy resilience

The U.S. government has recently decided to terminate its support for Ukraine's energy grid restoration, a critical initiative managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision, reported by NBC News, comes at a time when Ukraine is grappling with significant challenges to its energy infrastructure due to ongoing Russian attacks. The termination of support was reportedly finalized before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's scheduled visit to Washington, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy and raising concerns about the broader implications for Ukraine's energy resilience and its negotiations with Russia.

The Critical Role of U.S. Support

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the country’s energy infrastructure has been one of the primary targets of military strikes. Russia has launched numerous attacks on Ukraine's power generation facilities, substations, and power lines, causing power outages across multiple regions. These attacks have led to significant material losses, with damage reaching billions of dollars. As part of its commitment to Ukraine, the U.S. government, through USAID, had been instrumental in funding restoration efforts aimed at rebuilding and reinforcing Ukraine’s energy grid.

USAID's support was crucial in helping Ukraine withstand the damage inflicted by Russian missile strikes. This aid was not just about restoring basic services but also about fortifying the energy grid to ensure that Ukraine could continue functioning amidst the war and keep the lights on this winter as temperatures drop. The U.S. contribution to Ukraine's energy sector, alongside international support, helped reduce the immediate vulnerabilities faced by Ukraine's civilians and industries.

The Abrupt Change in U.S. Policy

The decision to cut support for energy grid restoration is seen as a sharp reversal in U.S. policy, particularly as the Biden administration has previously shown strong backing for Ukraine in the aftermath of the invasion. This shift in policy was reportedly made by the U.S. State Department, which directed USAID to halt its involvement in the energy sector.

According to NBC News, USAID officials expressed concern about the timing of this decision. One official noted that terminating support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration would severely undermine the U.S. government's ability to negotiate on issues like ceasefires and peace talks with Russia. The official argued that such a move would signal to Russia that the U.S. is backing away from its long-term investments in Ukraine, potentially weakening Ukraine's position in the ongoing war.

The abrupt end to this support is also seen as a blow to the morale of Ukraine’s government and people. Ukraine had been heavily reliant on the U.S. for resources to repair its critical infrastructure, and the decision to cut this support without warning has created uncertainty about the future of such recovery efforts.

Ukraine’s Response and Search for Alternatives

In response to the termination of U.S. support, Ukrainian officials have been seeking alternative sources of funding to continue the restoration of their energy grid. Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna reported that Ukraine has already reached preliminary agreements with other international partners to secure financial support for energy resilience, cyber defense, and recovery programs including new energy solutions for winter blackouts.

These efforts come at a time when Ukraine is working to rebuild its war-torn economy and safeguard critical sectors like energy and infrastructure. The termination of U.S. support for energy restoration projects underscores the growing pressure on Ukraine to diversify its sources of aid and not become overly dependent on any one nation. Ukrainian leaders are in ongoing talks with European governments, international financial institutions, and private investors to ensure that essential programs do not stall due to the lack of funding from the U.S., as energy cooperation grows and Ukraine helps Spain amid blackouts in solidarity.

Implications for Ukraine’s Energy Security

Ukraine's energy security remains a critical issue in the context of the ongoing conflict with Russia. The war has made the country’s energy infrastructure vulnerable to repeated attacks, and the restoration of this infrastructure is essential for ensuring that Ukraine can keep the lights on and recover in the long term. The U.S. has been one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's energy security efforts, and its withdrawal could force Ukraine to look for other partners who may not have the same level of financial or technological resources.

This development also raises questions about the future of U.S. involvement in Ukraine's recovery efforts more broadly. As the war continues and winter looms over the battlefront for frontline communities, the need for reliable and sustained support from international partners will only increase. If the U.S. significantly scales back its aid, Ukraine may face even greater challenges in maintaining its energy infrastructure and achieving long-term recovery.

Moving Forward

The termination of U.S. support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in international aid and geopolitics during wartime. As Ukraine faces the ongoing realities of the war, it must adapt to a shifting international landscape where traditional allies may not always be reliable sources of support. Ukraine’s leadership will need to be strategic in its search for alternative sources of aid, while also focusing on strengthening its energy grid, managing electricity reserves to stabilize supply, and reducing its vulnerabilities to Russian attacks.

While the end of U.S. support for Ukraine's energy restoration is a significant setback, it also underscores the urgent need for Ukraine to diversify its international partnerships. The future of Ukraine’s energy resilience may depend on how effectively it can navigate these changing dynamics while maintaining the support of the international community in the fight against Russian aggression.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Hitachi UK Nuclear Project Freeze reflects Horizon Nuclear Power's suspended Anglesey plant amid Brexit uncertainty, investor funding gaps, rising safety regulation costs, and a 300 billion yen write-down, impacting Britain's low-carbon electricity plans.

Key Points

Hitachi halted Horizon's Anglesey nuclear plant over funding and Brexit risks, recording a 300 billion yen write-down.

✅ 3 trillion yen UK nuclear project funding stalled

✅ 300 billion yen impairment wipes Horizon asset value

✅ Brexit, safety rules raised costs and investor risk

Japan’s Hitachi Ltd said on Thursday it has decided to freeze a 3 trillion yen ($28 billion) British nuclear power project and will consequently book a write down of 300 billion yen.

The suspension comes as Hitachi’s Horizon Nuclear Power failed to find private investors for its plans to build a plant in Anglesey, Wales, where local economic concerns have been raised, which promised to provide about 6 percent of Britain’s electricity.

“We’ve made the decision to freeze the project from the economic standpoint as a private company,” Hitachi said in a statement.

Hitachi had called on the British government to boost financial support for the project to appease investor anxiety, but turmoil over the country’s impending exit from the European Union limited the government’s capacity to compile plans, people close to the matter previously said.

Hitachi had called on the British government to boost financial support for the project to appease investor anxiety, but turmoil over the country’s impending exit from the European Union and setbacks at Hinkley Point C limited the government’s capacity to compile plans, people close to the matter previously said.

Hitachi had banked on a group of Japanese investors and the British government each taking a one-third stake in the equity portion of the project, the people said. The project would be financed one-third by equity and rest by debt.

The nuclear writedown wipes off the Horizon unit’s asset value, which stood at 296 billion yen as of September-end.

Hitachi stopped short of scrapping the northern Wales project. The company will continue to discuss with the British government on nuclear power, it said.

However, industry sources said hurdles to proceed with the project are high considering tighter safety regulations since a meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011 drove up costs, even as Europe’s nuclear decline strains energy planning.

Analysts and investors viewed the suspension as an effective withdrawal and saw the decision as a positive step that has removed uncertainties for the Japanese conglomerate.

Hitachi bought Horizon in 2012 for 696 million pounds ($1.12 billion), fromE.ON and RWE as the German utilities decided to sell their joint venture following Germany’s nuclear exit after the Fukushima accident.

Hitachi’s latest decision further dims Japan’s export prospects, even as some peers pursue UK offshore wind investments to diversify.

Toshiba Corp last year scrapped its British NuGen project after its US reactor unit Westinghouse went bankrupt, while Westinghouse in China reported no major impact, and it failed to sell NuGen to South Korea’s KEPCO.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd has effectively abandoned its Sinop nuclear project in Turkey, a person involved in the project previously told Reuters, as cost estimates had nearly doubled to around 5 trillion yen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News