OPG takes another step toward site preparation at Darlington

ESCC COVID-19 Resource Guide outlines control center continuity, sequestration, social distancing, remote operations, testing priorities, mutual assistance, supply chain risk, and PPE protocols to sustain grid reliability and plant operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Points

An industry guide to COVID-19 mitigation for the power sector covering control centers, testing, PPE, and mutual aid.

✅ Control center continuity: segregation, remote ops, reserve shifts

✅ Sequestration triggers, testing priorities, and PPE protocols

✅ Mutual assistance, supply chain risk, and workforce planning

The latest version of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council’s (ESCC’s) resource guide to assess and mitigate COVID-19 suggests the U.S. power sector continues to grapple with key concerns involving control center continuity, power plant continuity, access to restricted and quarantined areas, mutual assistance, and supply chain challenges, alongside urban demand shifts seen in Ottawa’s electricity demand during closures.

In its fifth and sixth versions of the “ESCC Resource Guide—Assessing and Mitigating the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19),” released on April 16 and April 20, respectively, the ESCC expanded its guidance as it relates to social distancing and sequestration within tight power sector environments like control centers, crucial mitigation strategies that are designed to avoid attrition of essential workers.

The CEO-led power sector group that serves as a liaison with the federal government during emergencies introduced the guide on March 23, and it provides periodic updates  sourced from “tiger teams,” which are made up of representatives from investor-owned electric companies, public power utilities, electric cooperatives, independent power producers (IPPs), and other stakeholders. Collating regulatory updates and emerging resources, it serves as a general shareable blueprint for generators,  transmission and distribution (T&D) facilities, reliability coordinators, and balancing authorities across the nation on issues the sector is facing as the COVID-19 pandemic endures.

Controlling Spread at Control Centers
While control centers are typically well-isolated, physically secure, and may be conducive to on-site sequestration, the guide is emphatic that staff at these facilities are typically limited and they need long lead times to be trained to properly use the information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT) tools to keep control centers functioning and maintain grid visibility. Control room operators generally include: reliability engineers, dispatchers, area controllers, and their shift supervisors. Staff that directly support these function, also considered critical, consist of employees who maintain and secure the functionality of the IT and OT tools used by the control room operators.

In its latest update, the ESCC notes that many entities took “proactive steps to isolate their control center facilities from external visitors and non-essential employees early in the pandemic, leveraging the presence of back-up control centers, self-quarantining of employees, and multiple shifts to maximize social distancing.” To ensure all levels of logistical and operational challenges posed by the pandemic are addressed, it envisions several scenarios ranging from mild contagion—where a single operator is affected at one of two control center sites to the compromise of both sites.

Previous versions of the guide have set out universal mitigation strategies—such as clear symptom reporting, cleaning, and travel guidance. To ensure continuity even in the most dire of circumstances, for example, it recommends segregating shifts, and even sequestering a “complete healthy shift” as a “reserve” for times when minimum staffing levels cannot be met. It also encourages companies to develop a backup staff of retirees, supervisors, managers, and engineers that could backfill staffing needs.

Meanwhile, though social distancing has always been a universal mitigation strategy, the ESCC last week detailed what social distancing at a control room could look like. It says, for example, that entities should consider if personnel can do their jobs in spaces adjacent to the existing control room; moving workstations to allow at least six feet of space between employees; or designating workstations for individual operators. The guide also suggests remote operations outside of a single control room as an option, and some markets are exploring virtual power plant models in the UK to support flexibility, though it underscores that not all control center operations can be performed remotely, and remote operations increase the potential for security vulnerabilities. “The NERC [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] Reliability Standards address requirements for BES [bulk electric system] control centers and security controls for remote access of systems, applications, or data,” the resource guide notes.

Sequestration—Highly Effective but Difficult
Significantly, the new update also clarifies circumstances that could “trigger” sequestration—or keeping mission-essential workers at facilities. Sequestration, it notes, “is likely to be the most effective means of reducing risk to critical control center employees during a pandemic, but it is also the most resource- and cost-intensive option to implement.”

It is unclear exactly how many power sector workers are currently being sequestered at facilities. According to the  American Public Power Association (APPA), as of last week, the New York Power Authority was sequestering 82 power plant control room and transmission control operator, amid New York City’s shifting electric rhythms during COVID-19; the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) in California had begun sequestering critical employees; and the Electric & Gas Utility at the City of Tallahassee had 44 workers being rotated in and out of sequestration. Another 37 workers from the New York ISO were already being sequestered or housed onsite as of April 9. PJM began sequestering a team of operators on April 11, and National Grid was sequestering 200 employees as of April 12. 

Decisions to trigger sequestration at T&D and other grid monitoring facilities are typically driven by entities’ risk assessment, ESCC noted. Considerations may involve: 

The number of people showing symptoms or testing positive as a percentage of the population in a county or municipality where the control center is sited. One organization, for example, is considering a lower threshold of 10% community infection as a trigger of “officer-level decision” to determine whether to sequester. A higher threshold of 20% “mandates a move to sequestration,” ESCC said.
The number of essential workers showing symptoms or having tested positive. “Acceptable risk should be based on the minimum staffing requirements of the control center and should include the availability of a reserve shift for critical position backfills. For example, shift supervisors are commonly certified in all positions in the control center, and the unavailability of more than one-third of a single organization’s shift supervisors could compromise operations,” it said.
The rate of infection spread across a geographic region. In the April 20 version, the guide removes specific mention that cases are doubling “every 3–5 days or more frequently in some areas.” It now says:  “Considering the rapid spread of COVID-19, special care should be taken to identify the point at which control center personnel are more likely than not to come into contact with an infected individual during their off-shift hours.”
Generator Sequestration Measures Vary
Generators, meanwhile, have taken different approaches to sequester generation operators. Some have reacted to statewide outbreaks, others to low reserves, and others still, as with one IPP, to control exposure to smaller staffs, which cannot afford attrition. The IPP, for example, decided sequestration was necessary because it “did not want to wait for confirmed cases in the workforce.” That company sequestered all its control room operators, outside operators, and instrumentation and control technicians.

The ESCC resource guide says workers are being sequestered in several ways. On-site, these could range from housing workers in two separate areas, for example, or in trailers brought in. Off-site, workers may be housed in hotel rooms, which the guide notes, “are plentiful.”

Location makes a difference, it said: “Onsite requires more logistical co-ordination for accommodations, food, room sanitization, linens, and entertainment.”  To accommodate sequestered workers, generators have to consider off-site food and laundry services (left at gates for pick-up)—and even extending Wi-Fi for personal use. Generators are learning from each other about all aspects of sequestration—including how to pay sequestered workers. It suggests sequestered workers should receive pay for all hours inside the plant, including straight time for regularly scheduled hours and time-and-a-half for all other hours. To maintain non-sequestered employees, who are following stay-at-home protocols, pay should remain regularly scheduled, it says.

Testing Remains a Formidable Hurdle
Though decisions to sequester differ among different power entities, they appear commonly complicated by one prominent issue: a dearth of testing.

At the center of a scuffle between the federal and state governments of late, the number of tests has not kept pace with the severity of the pandemic, and while President Trump has for some weeks claimed that “Testing is a local thing,” state officials, business leaders—including from the power sector—and public health experts say that it is far short of the several hundred thousands or perhaps even millions of daily tests it might take to safely restart the economy, even as calls to keep electricity options open grow among policymakers, a three-phase approach for which the Trump administration rolled out this week. While the White House said the approach is “based on the advice of public health experts, the suggestions do not indicate a specific timeframe. Some hard-hit states have committed to keeping current restrictions in place. New York on April 16 said it would maintain a shutdown order through May 15, while California published its own guidelines and states in the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast entered regional pacts that may involve interstate coordination on COVID-19–related policy going forward.

On Sunday, responding to a call by governors across the political spectrum that insisted the federal government should step up efforts to help states obtain vital supplies for tests, Trump said the federal government will be “using” and “preparing to use” the Defense Production Act to increase swab production.

For the power entities that are part of the ESCC, widespread testing underlies many mitigation strategies. The group’s generation owners and operating companies, which include members from the full power spectrum, have said testing is central to “successful mitigation of risk to control center continuity.”

In the updated guide, the entities recommend requesting that governmental authorities—it is unclear whether the focus should be on the federal or state governments—“direct medical facilities to prioritize testing for asymptomatic generation control room operators, operator technicians, instrument and control technicians, and the operations supervisor (treat comparable to first responders) in advance of sequestered, extended-duration shifts; and obtain state regulatory approval for corporate health services organizations to administer testing for coronavirus to essential employees, if applicable.”

The second priority, as crucial, involves asking the government to direct medical facilities to prioritize testing for control room operators before they are sequestered or go into extended-duration shifts.

Generators also want local, regional, state, and federal governments to ensure operators of generating facilities are allowed to move freely if “populace-wide quarantine/curfew or other travel restrictions” are enacted. Meanwhile,  they have also asked federal agencies and state permitting agencies to allow for non-compliance operations of generating facilities in case enough workers are not available.

Lower on its list, but still “medium priority,” is that the government should obtain authority for priority supply of sanitizing supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) for generating facilities. They are also asking states to allow power plant employees (as opposed to crucially redirected medical personnel) to administer health questionnaires and temperature checks without Americans with Disabilities Act or other legal constraints. Newly highlighted in the update, meanwhile, is an emphasis on enough fire retardant (FR) vests and hoods and PPE, including masks and face coverings, so technicians don’t have to share them.

The worst-case scenario envisioned for generators involves a 40% workforce attrition, a nine-month pandemic, and no mutual assistance. As the update suggests, along with universal mitigation strategies, some power companies are eliminating non-essential work that would require close contact, altering assignments so work tasks are done by paired teams that do not rotate, and ensuring workers wear masks. The resource guide includes case studies and lessons learned so far, and all suggest pandemic planning was crucial to response. 

Gearing Up for Mutual Assistance—Even for Generation—During COVID-19
Meanwhile, though the guide recognizes that protecting employees is a key priority for many entities, it also lauds the crucial role mutual assistance plays in the sector’s collective response to the pandemic, even as coal and nuclear plant closures test just transition planning across regions. Mutual assistance is a long-standing power sector practice in the U.S. Last week, for example, as severe weather impacted the southern and eastern portions of the U.S., causing power outages for 1.3 million customers at the peak, the sector demonstrated the “versatility of mutual assistance processes,” bringing in additional workers and equipment from nearby utilities and contractors to assist with assessment and repair. “Crews utilized PPE and social distancing per the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] guidelines to perform their restoration duties,” the Energy Department told POWER.

But as the ESCC’s guide points out, mutual assistance has traditionally been deployed to help restore electric service to customers, typically focused on T&D infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic, uniquely, “has motivated generation entities to consider the use of mutual assistance for generation plant operation” it notes. As with the model it proposes to ensure continuity of control centers, mutual aid poses key challenges, such as for task variance, knowledge of operational practice, system customization, and legal indemnification.

Among guidelines ESCC proposes for generators are to use existing employee work stoppage plans as a resource in planning for the use of personnel not currently assigned to plant operation. It urges, for example, that generators keep a list of workers with skills who can be called from corporate/tech support (such as former operators or plant engineers/managers), or retirees and other individuals who could be called upon to help operate the control room first. ESCC also recommends considering the use of third-party contractor operations to supplement plant operations.

Key to these efforts is to “Create a thorough list of experience and qualifications needed to operate a particular unit. Important details include fuel type, OEM [original equipment manufacturer] technology, DCS [distributed control system] type, environmental controls, certifications, etc,” it says. “Consider proactively sharing this information internally within your company first and then with neighboring companies”—and that includes sufficient detail from manufacturers (such as Emerson Ovation, GE Mark VI, ABB, Honeywell)—“without exposing proprietary information.” One way to control this information is to develop a mutual assistance agreement with “strategic” companies within the region or system, it says.

Of specific interest is that the ESCC also recommends that generators consider “leaving units in extended or planned maintenance outage in that state as long as possible.” That’s because, “Operators at these offline sites could be considered available for a site responding to pandemic challenges,” it says.

However, these guidelines differ by resource. Nuclear generators, for example, already have robust emergency plans that include minimum staffing requirements, and owing to regulations, mutual aid is managed by each license holder, it says. However, to provide possible relief for attrition at operating nuclear plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 28 outlined a streamlined process that could allow nuclear operators to obtain exemptions from work hour rules, while organizations also point to IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons for future planning.

Uncertainty of Supply Chain Endurance
As the guide stresses, operational continuity during the pandemic will require that all power entities maintain supply of inputs and physical equipment. To help entities plan ahead—by determining volumes needed and geographic location of suppliers—it lists the most important materials needed for power delivery and bulk chemicals. “Clearly, the extent and duration of this emergency will influence the importance of one supply chain component compared to another,” it says.

As Massachusetts Institute of Technology supply chain expert David Simchi-Levi noted on April 13, global supply chains have been heavily taxed by the pandemic, and manufacturing activities in the European Union and North America are still going offline. China is showing signs of slow recovery. Even in the best-case scenario, however—even if North America and Europe manage to control and reduce the pandemic—the supply chain will likely experience significant logistical capacity shortages, from transportation to warehousing. Owing to variability in timing, he suggested that companies plan to reconfigure supply chains and reposition inventory in case suppliers go out of business or face quarantine, while some industry groups urge investing in hydropower as part of resilient recovery strategies.

Also in short supply, according to ESCC, is industry-critical PPE. “While our sector recognizes that the priority is to ensure that PPE is available for workers in the healthcare sector and first responders, a reliable energy supply is required for healthcare and other sectors to deliver their critical services,” its resource guide notes. “The sector is not looking for PPE for the entire workforce. Rather, we are working to prioritize supplies for mission-essential workers – a subset of highly skilled energy workers who are unable to work remotely and who are mission-essential during this extraordinary time.”

Among critical industry PPE needs are nitrile gloves, shoe covers, Tyvek suits, goggles/glasses, hand sanitizer, dust masks, N95 respirators, antibacterial soap, and trashbags. While it provides a list of non-governmental PPE vendors and suppliers, the guide also provides several “creative” solutions. These include, for example, formulations for effective hand sanitizer; 3D printer face shield files; methods for decontaminating face piece respirators and other PPE; and instructions for homemade masks with pockets for high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter inserts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Energy Transition traces the shift from coal and oil to natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables like wind and solar, driven by efficiency, grid modernization, climate goals, and economic innovation.

Key Points

The U.S. Energy Transition is the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner power, driven by tech, policy, and markets.

✅ Shift from coal and oil to gas, nuclear, wind, and solar

✅ Enabled by grid modernization, storage, and efficiency

✅ Aims to cut emissions while ensuring reliability and affordability

The evolution of energy use in the United States is a dynamic narrative that reflects technological advancements, economic shifts, environmental awareness, and societal changes over time. From the nation's early reliance on wood and coal to the modern era dominated by oil, natural gas, and renewable sources, the story of energy consumption in the U.S. is a testament to innovation and adaptation.

Early Energy Sources: Wood and Coal

In the early days of U.S. history, energy needs were primarily met through renewable resources such as wood for heating and cooking. As industrialization took hold in the 19th century, coal emerged as a dominant energy source, fueling steam engines and powering factories, railways, and urban growth. The widespread availability of coal spurred economic development and shaped the nation's infrastructure.

The Rise of Petroleum and Natural Gas

The discovery and commercialization of petroleum in the late 19th century transformed the energy landscape once again. Oil quickly became a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, powering transportation, industry, and residential heating, and informing debates about U.S. energy security in policy circles. Concurrently, natural gas emerged as a significant energy source, particularly for heating and electricity generation, as pipelines expanded across the country.

Electricity Revolution

The 20th century witnessed a revolution in electricity generation and consumption, and understanding where electricity comes from helps contextualize how systems evolved. The development of hydroelectric power, spurred by projects like the Hoover Dam and Tennessee Valley Authority, provided clean and renewable energy to millions of Americans. The widespread electrification of rural areas and the proliferation of appliances in homes and businesses transformed daily life and spurred economic growth.

Nuclear Power and Energy Diversification

In the mid-20th century, nuclear power emerged as a promising alternative to fossil fuels, promising abundant energy with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. Despite concerns about safety and waste disposal, nuclear power plants became a significant part of the U.S. energy mix, providing a stable base load of electricity, even as the aging U.S. power grid complicates integration of variable renewables.

Renewable Energy Revolution

In recent decades, the U.S. has seen a growing emphasis on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power, yet market shocks and high fuel prices alone have not guaranteed a rapid green revolution, prompting broader policy and investment responses. Advances in technology, declining costs, and environmental concerns have driven investments in clean energy infrastructure and policies promoting renewable energy adoption. States like California and Texas lead the nation in wind and solar energy production, demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of transitioning to sustainable energy sources.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Alongside shifts in energy sources, improvements in energy efficiency and conservation have played a crucial role in reducing per capita energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy-efficient appliances, building codes, and transportation innovations have helped mitigate the environmental impact of energy use while reducing costs for consumers and businesses, and weather and economic factors also influence demand; for example, U.S. power demand fell in 2023 on milder weather, underscoring the interplay between efficiency and usage.

Challenges and Opportunities

Looking ahead, the U.S. faces both challenges and opportunities in its energy future, as recent energy crisis effects ripple across electricity, gas, and EVs alike. Addressing climate change requires further investments in renewable energy, grid modernization, and energy storage technologies. Balancing energy security, affordability, and environmental sustainability remains a complex task that requires collaboration between government, industry, and society.

Conclusion

The evolution of energy use throughout U.S. history reflects a continuous quest for innovation, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. From wood and coal to nuclear power and renewables, each era has brought new challenges and opportunities in meeting the nation's energy needs. As the U.S. transitions towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future, leveraging technological advancements and embracing policy solutions, amid debates over U.S. energy dominance, will be essential in shaping the next chapter of America's energy story.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Power Grid Climate Resilience integrates extreme weather planning, microgrids, battery storage, renewable energy, vegetation management, and undergrounding to reduce outages, harden infrastructure, modernize utilities, and safeguard reliability during storms, ice events, and wildfires.

Key Points

Canada's grid resilience hardens utilities against extreme weather using microgrids, storage, renewables, and upgrades.

✅ Grid hardening: microgrids, storage, renewable integration

✅ Vegetation management reduces storm-related line contact

✅ Selective undergrounding where risk and cost justify

The increasing intensity of storms that lead to massive power outages highlights the need for Canada’s electrical utilities to be more robust and innovative, climate change scientists say.

“We need to plan to be more resilient in the face of the increasing chances of these events occurring,” University of New Brunswick climate change scientist Louise Comeau said in a recent interview.

The East Coast was walloped this week by the third storm in as many days, with high winds toppling trees and even part of a Halifax church steeple, underscoring the value of storm-season electrical safety tips for residents.

Significant weather events have consistently increased over the last five years, according to the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA), which has tracked such events since 2003.

#google#

Nearly a quarter of total outage hours nationally in 2016 – 22 per cent – were caused by two ice storms, a lightning storm, and the Fort McMurray fires, which the CEA said may or may not be classified as a climate event.

“It (climate change) is putting quite a lot of pressure on electricity companies coast to coast to coast to improve their processes and look for ways to strengthen their systems in the face of this evolving threat,” said Devin McCarthy, vice president of public affairs and U.S. policy for the CEA, which represents 40 utilities serving 14 million customers.

The 2016 figures – the most recent available – indicate the average Canadian customer experienced 3.1 outages and 5.66 hours of outage time.

McCarthy said electricity companies can’t just build their systems to withstand the worst storm they’d dealt with over the previous 30 years. They must prepare for worse, and address risks highlighted by Site C dam stability concerns as part of long-term planning.

“There needs to be a more forward looking approach, climate science led, that looks at what do we expect our system to be up against in the next 20, 30 or 50 years,” he said.

Toronto Hydro is either looking at or installing equipment with extreme weather in mind, Elias Lyberogiannis, the utility’s general manager of engineering, said in an email.

That includes stainless steel transformers that are more resistant to corrosion, and breakaway links for overhead service connections, which allow service wires to safely disconnect from poles and prevents damage to service masts.

Comeau said smaller grids, tied to electrical systems operated by larger utilities, often utilize renewable energy sources such as solar and wind as well as battery storage technology to power collections of buildings, homes, schools and hospitals.

“Capacity to do that means we are less vulnerable when the central systems break down,” Comeau said.

Nova Scotia Power recently announced an “intelligent feeder” pilot project, which involves the installation of Tesla Powerwall storage batteries in 10 homes in Elmsdale, N.S., and a large grid-sized battery at the local substation. The batteries are connected to an electrical line powered in part by nearby wind turbines.

The idea is to test the capability of providing customers with back-up power, while collecting data that will be useful for planning future energy needs.

Tony O’Hara, NB Power’s vice-president of engineering, said the utility, which recently sounded an alarm on copper theft, was in the late planning stages of a micro-grid for the western part of the province, and is also studying the use of large battery storage banks.

“Those things are coming, that will be an evolution over time for sure,” said O’Hara.

Some solutions may be simpler. Smaller utilities, like Nova Scotia Power, are focusing on strengthening overhead systems, mainly through vegetation management, while in Ontario, Hydro One and Alectra are making major investments to strengthen infrastructure in the Hamilton area.

“The number one cause of outages during storms, particularly those with high winds and heavy snow, is trees making contact with power lines,” said N.S. Power’s Tiffany Chase.

The company has an annual budget of $20 million for tree trimming and removal.

“But the reality is with overhead infrastructure, trees are going to cause damage no matter how robust the infrastructure is,” said Matt Drover, the utility’s director for regional operations.

“We are looking at things like battery storage and a variety of other reliability programs to help with that.”

NB Power also has an increased emphasis on tree trimming and removal, and now spends $14 million a year on it, up from $6 million prior to 2014.

O’Hara said the vegetation program has helped drive the average duration of power outages down since 2014 from about three hours to two hours and 45 minutes.

Some power cables are buried in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, mostly in urban areas. But both utilities maintain it’s too expensive to bury entire systems – estimated at $1 million per kilometre by Nova Scotia Power.

The issue of burying more lines was top of mind in Toronto following a 2013 ice storm, but that’s city’s utility also rejected the idea of a large-scale underground system as too expensive – estimating the cost at around $15 billion, while Ontario customers have seen Hydro One delivery rates rise in recent adjustments.

“Having said that, it is prudent to do so for some installations depending on site specific conditions and the risks that exist,” Lyberogiannis said.

Comeau said lowering risks will both save money and disruption to people’s lives.

“We can’t just do what we used to do,” said Xuebin Zhang, a senior climate change scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

“We have to build in management risk … this has to be a new norm.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Europe's Nuclear Energy Policy shapes responses to the energy crisis, soaring gas prices, EU taxonomy rules, net-zero goals, renewables integration, baseload security, SMRs, and Russia-Ukraine geopolitics, exposing cultural, financial, and environmental divides.

Key Points

A policy guiding nuclear exits or expansion to balance energy security, net-zero goals, costs, and EU taxonomy.

✅ Divergent national stances: phase-outs vs. new builds

✅ Costs, delays, and waste challenge large reactors

✅ SMRs, renewables, and gas shape net-zero pathways

As the Fukushima disaster unfolded in Japan in 2011, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a dramatic decision that delighted her country’s anti-nuclear movement: all reactors would be ditched.

What couldn’t have been predicted was that Europe would find itself mired in one of the worst energy crises in its history. A decade later, the continent’s biggest economy has shut down almost all its capacity already. The rest will be switched off at the end of 2022 — at the worst possible time.

Wholesale power prices are more than four times what they were at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Governments are having to take emergency action to support domestic and industrial consumers faced with crippling bills, which could rise higher if the tension over Ukraine escalates. The crunch has not only exposed Europe’s supply vulnerabilities, but also the entrenched cultural and political divisions over the nuclear industry and a failure to forge a collective vision. 

Other regions meanwhile are cracking on, challenging the idea that nuclear power is in decline worldwide. China is moving fast on nuclear to try to clean up its air quality. Its suite of reactors is on track to surpass that of the U.S., the world’s largest, by as soon as the middle of this decade. Russia is moving forward with new stations at home and has more than 20 reactors confirmed or planned for export construction, according to the World Nuclear Association.

“I don’t think we’re ever going to see consensus across Europe with regards to the continued running of existing assets, let alone the construction of new ones,” said Peter Osbaldstone, research director for power and renewables at Wood Mackenzie Group Ltd. in the U.K. “It’s such a massive polarizer of opinions that national energy policy is required in strength over a sustained period to support new nuclear investment.” 

France, Europe’s most prolific nuclear energy producer, is promising an atomic renaissance as its output becomes less reliable. Britain plans to replace aging plants in the quest for cleaner, more reliable energy sources. The Netherlands wants to add more capacity, Poland also is seeking to join the nuclear club, and Finland is starting to produce electricity later this month from its first new plant in four decades. 

Belgium and Spain, meanwhile, are following Germany’s lead in abandoning nuclear, albeit on different timeframes. Austria rejected it in a referendum in 1978.

Nuclear power is seen by its proponents as vital to reaching net-zero targets worldwide. Once built, reactors supply low-carbon electricity all the time, unlike intermittent wind or solar.

Plants, though, take a decade or more to construct at best and the risk is high of running over time and over budget. Finland’s new Olkiluoto-3 unit is coming on line after a 12-year delay and billions of euros in financial overruns. 

Then there’s the waste, which stays hazardous for 100,000 years. For those reasons European Union members are still quarreling over whether nuclear even counts as sustainable.

Electorates are also split. Polling by YouGov Plc published in December found that Danes, Germans and Italians were far more nuclear-skeptic than the French, British or Spanish. 

“It comes down to politics,” said Vince Zabielski, partner at New York-based law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, who was a nuclear engineer for 15 years. “Everything political ebbs and flows, but when the lights start going off people have a completely different perspective.”

What’s Behind Europe’s Skyrocketing Energy Prices

Indeed, there’s a risk of rolling blackouts this winter. Supply concerns plaguing Europe have sent gas and electricity prices to record levels and inflation has ballooned. There’s also mounting tension with Russia over a possible invasion of Ukraine, which could lead to disrupted supplies of gas. All this is strengthening the argument that Europe needs to reduce its dependence on international sources of gas.

Europe will need to invest 500 billion euros ($568 billion) in nuclear over the next 30 years to meet growing demand for electricity and achieve its carbon reduction targets, according to Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner. His comments come after the bloc unveiled plans last month to allow certain natural gas and nuclear energy projects to be classified as sustainable investments. 

“Nuclear power is a very long-term investment and investors need some kind of guarantee that it will generate a payoff,” said Elina Brutschin at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. In order to survive in liberalized economies like the EU, the technology needs policy support to help protect investors, she said.

That already looks like a tall order. The European Commission has been told by a key expert group that the labeling risks raising greenhouse gas emissions and undermining the bloc’s reputation as a bastion for environmentally friendly finance.

Austria has threatened to sue the European Commission over attempts to label atomic energy as green. The nation previously attempted a legal challenge, when the U.K. was still an EU member, to stop the construction of Electricite de France SA’s Hinkley Point C plant, in the west of England. It has also commenced litigation against new Russia-backed projects in neighboring Hungary.

Germany, which has missed its carbon emissions targets for the past two years, has been criticized by some environmentalists and climate scientists for shutting down a supply of clean power at the worst time, despite arguments for a nuclear option for climate policy. Its final three reactors will be halted this year. Yet that was never going to be reversed with the Greens part of the new coalition government. 

The contribution of renewables in Germany has almost tripled since the year before Fukushima, and was 42% of supply last year. That’s a drop from 46% from the year before and means the country’s new government will have to install some 3 gigawatts of renewables — equivalent to the generating capacity of three nuclear reactors — every year this decade to hit the country's 80% goal.

“Other countries don’t have this strong political background that goes back to three decades of anti-nuclear protests,” said Manuel Koehler, managing director of Aurora Energy Research Ltd., a company analyzing power markets and founded by Oxford University academics. 

At the heart of the issue is that countries with a history of nuclear weapons will be more likely to use the fuel for power generation. They will also have built an industry and jobs in civil engineering around that.

Germany’s Greens grew out of anti-nuclear protest movements against the stationing of U.S. nuclear missiles in West Germany. The 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, which sent plumes of radioactive fallout wafting over parts of western Europe, helped galvanize the broader population. Nuclear phase-out plans were originally laid out in 2002, but were put on hold by the country's conservative governments. The 2011 Fukushima meltdowns reinvigorated public debate, ultimately prompting Merkel to implement them.

It’s not easy to undo that commitment, said Mark Hibbs, a Bonn, Germany-based nuclear analyst at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, or to envision any resurgence of nuclear in Germany soon: “These are strategic decisions, that have been taken long in advance.”

In France, President Emmanuel Macron is about to embark on a renewed embrace of nuclear power, even as a Franco-German nuclear dispute complicates the debate. The nation produces about two-thirds of its power from reactors and is the biggest exporter of electricity in Europe. Notably, that includes anti-nuclear Germany and Austria.

EDF, the world’s biggest nuclear plant operator, is urging the French government to support construction of six new large-scale reactors at an estimated cost of about 50 billion euros. The first of them would start generating in 2035.

But even France has faced setbacks. Development of new projects has been put on hold after years of technical issues at the Flamanville-3 project in Normandy. The plant is now scheduled to be completed next year. 

In the U.K., Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said that the global gas price crisis underscores the need for more home-generated clean power. By 2024, five of Britain’s eight plants will be shuttered because they are too old. Hinkley Point C is due to be finished in 2026 and the government will make a final decision on another station before an election due in 2024. 

One solution is to build small modular reactors, or SMRs, which are quicker to construct and cheaper. The U.S. is at the forefront of efforts to design smaller nuclear systems with plans also underway in the U.K. and France. Yet they too have faced delays. SMR designs have existed for decades though face the same challenging economic metrics and safety and security regulations of big plants.

The trouble, as ever, is time. “Any investment decisions you make now aren’t going to come to fruition until the 2030s,” said Osbaldstone, the research director at Wood Mackenzie. “Nuclear isn’t an answer to the current energy crisis.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Entergy COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund provides financial assistance to ALICE households, low-income seniors, and disabled customers via United Way grants for rent, mortgage, utilities, food, and bill payment support during COVID-19, alongside a disconnect moratorium.

Key Points

A shareholder-funded program offering essential grants and bill support to Entergy customers affected by COVID-19.

✅ Shareholders commit $700,000; grants distributed via United Way partners.

✅ Focus on ALICE families, low-income seniors, and disabled customers.

✅ Disconnects suspended; bill tools and LIHEAP advocacy underway.

In an effort to help working families experiencing financial hardships as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, the Entergy Charitable Foundation has established the COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund, recognizing the need for electricity across communities.

"The health and safety of our customers, employees and communities is Entergy's top priority," said Leo Denault, chairman and CEO of Entergy Corporation. "For more than 100 years, Entergy has never wavered in our commitment to supporting our customers and the communities we serve. This pandemic is no different. During this challenging time, we are helping lessen the impact of this crisis on the most vulnerable in our communities. I strongly encourage our business partners to join us in this effort."

As devastating and disruptive as this crisis is for everyone, we know from past experience that those most heavily impacted are ALICE households (low-wage working families) and low-income elderly and disabled customers, who often face energy insecurity during such events - roughly 40%-50% of Entergy's customer base.

"We know from experience that working families and low-income elderly and disabled customers are hardest hit during times of crisis," said Patty Riddlebarger, vice president of Entergy's corporate social responsibility. "We are working quickly to make funds available to community partners that serve vulnerable households to lessen the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis and ensure that families have the resources they need to get by during this time of uncertainty."

To support our most vulnerable customers, Entergy shareholders are committing $700,000 to the COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund to help qualifying customers with basic needs such as food and nutrition, rent and mortgage assistance, and other critical needs, alongside measures like Texas utilities waiving fees that ease household costs, until financial situations become more stable. Grants from the fund will be provided to United Way organizations and other nonprofit partners across Entergy's service area that are providing services to impacted households.

Company shareholders will also match employee contributions to the COVID-19 relief efforts of local United Way organizations up to $100,000 to maximize impact.

In addition to establishing the COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund, Entergy is taking additional steps to support and protect our customers during this crisis, similar to PG&E's pandemic response measures, including:

With support from our regulators, we are temporarily suspending customer disconnects, as seen in New Jersey and New York policies, as we continue to monitor the situation.

We are working with our network of community advocates, as the industry coordination with federal partners continues, to request a funding increase of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to help alleviate financial hardships caused by COVID-19 on vulnerable households.

We are developing bill payment solutions and tools to help customers pay their accumulated balances once the disconnect moratorium is lifted.

Already in place to support vulnerable customers is Entergy's The Power to Care program, which provides emergency bill payment assistance to seniors and disabled individuals. To mark the 20th anniversary of Entergy's low-income customer initiative, the limit of shareholders' dollar for dollar match of customer donations was increased from $500,000 to $1 million per year. Shareholders continue to match employee donations dollar for dollar with no limit.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News