Norway to build first miniature seawater power station

Germany Coal Phase-Out 2038 advances the energy transition, curbing lignite emissions while scaling renewable energy, carbon pricing, and hydrogen storage amid a nuclear phase-out and regional just-transition funding for miners and communities.

Key Points

Germany's plan to end coal by 2038, fund regional transition, and scale renewable energy while exiting nuclear.

✅ Closes last coal plant by 2038; reviews may accelerate.

✅ 40b euros aid for lignite regions and workforce.

✅ Emphasizes renewables, hydrogen, carbon pricing reforms.

German lawmakers have finalized the country's long-awaited phase-out of coal as an energy source, backing a plan that environmental groups say isn't ambitious enough and free marketeers criticize as a waste of taxpayers' money.

Bills approved by both houses of parliament Friday envision shutting down the last coal-fired power plant by 2038 and spending some 40 billion euros ($45 billion) to help affected regions cope with the transition, which has been complicated by grid expansion woes in recent years.

The plan is part of Germany's `energy transition' - an effort to wean Europe's biggest economy off planet-warming fossil fuels and generate all of the country's considerable energy needs from renewable sources. Achieving that goal is made harder than in comparable countries such as France and Britain because of Germany's existing commitment to also phase out nuclear power entirely by the end of 2022.

"The days of coal are numbered in Germany," Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said. "Germany is the first industrialized country that leaves behind both nuclear energy and coal."

Greenpeace and other environmental groups have staged vocal protests against the plan, including by dropping a banner down the front of the Reichstag building Friday. They argue that the government's road map won't reduce Germany's greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to meet the targets set out in the Paris climate accord.

"Germany, the country that burns the greatest amount of lignite coal worldwide, will burden the next generation with 18 more years of carbon dioxide," Greenpeace Germany's executive director Martin Kaiser told The Associated Press.

Kaiser, who was part of a government-appointed expert commission, accused Chancellor Angela Merkel of making a "historic mistake," saying an end date for coal of 2030 would have sent a strong signal for European and global climate policy. Merkel has said she wants Europe to be the first continent to end its greenhouse gas emissions, by 2050, even as some in Berlin debate a possible nuclear U-turn to reach that goal faster.

Germany closed its last black coal mine in 2018, but it continues to import the fuel and extract its own reserves of lignite, a brownish coal that is abundant in the west and east of the country, and generates about a third of its electricity from coal in recent years. Officials warn that the loss of mining jobs could hurt those economically fragile regions, though efforts are already under way to turn the vast lignite mines into nature reserves and lakeside resorts.

Schulze, the environment minister, said there would be regular government reviews to examine whether the end date for coal can be brought forward, even as Berlin temporarily extended nuclear operations during the energy crisis. She noted that by the end of 2022, eight of the country's most polluting coal-fired plants will have already been closed.

Environmentalists have also criticized the large sums being offered to coal companies to shut down their plants, a complaint shared by libertarians such as Germany's opposition Free Democratic Party.

Katja Suding, a leading FDP lawmaker, said the government should have opted to expand existing emissions trading systems that put a price on carbon, thereby encouraging operators to shut down unprofitable coal plants.

Katja Suding, a leading FDP lawmaker, said the government should have opted to expand existing emissions trading systems, rather than banking on a nuclear option, that put a price on carbon, thereby encouraging operators to shut down unprofitable coal plants.

"You just have to make it so expensive that it's not profitable anymore to turn coal into electricity," she said.

This week, utility companies in Spain shut down seven of the country's 15 coal-fired power plants, saying they couldn't be operated at profit without government subsidies.

But the head of Germany's main miners' union, Michael Vassiliadis, welcomed the decision, calling it a "historic milestone." He urged the government to focus next on an expansion of renewable energy generation and the use of hydrogen as a clean alternative for storing and transporting energy in the future, amid arguments that nuclear won't fix the gas crunch in the near term.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Energy Justice Program drives a renewables-based transition, challenging utility monopolies with legal action, promoting rooftop solar, distributed energy, public power, and climate justice to decarbonize the grid and protect communities and wildlife nationwide.

Key Points

A climate justice initiative advancing renewables, legal action, and public power to challenge utility monopolies.

✅ Challenges utility barriers to rooftop solar and distributed energy

✅ Advances state and federal policies for equitable, public power

✅ Uses litigation to curb fossil fuel dependence and protect communities

The Center for Biological Diversity on Monday rolled out a new program to push back against the nation's community- and wildlife-harming energy system that the climate advocacy group says is based on fossil fuels and a "centralized monopoly on power."

The goal of the new effort, the Energy Justice Program, is to help forge a path towards a just and renewables-based energy future informed by equitable regulation principles.

"Our broken energy system threatens our climate and our future," said Jean Su, the Energy Justice Program's new director, in a statement. "Utilities were given monopolies to ensure public access to electricity, but these dinosaur corporations are now hurting the public interest by blocking the clean energy transition, including via coal and nuclear subsidy schemes that profit off the fossil fuel era."

"In this era of climate catastrophe," she continued, "we have to stop these outdated monopolies and usher in a new electricity future that works for people and the planet."

To meet those goals, the new program will pursue a number of avenues, including using legal action to fight utilities' obstruction of clean energy efforts, helping communities advance local solar programs through energy freedom strategies in the South, and crafting energy policies on the state, federal, and international levels in step with commitments from major energy buyers to achieve a 90% carbon-free goal by 2030.

Some of that work is already underway. In June the Center filed a brief with a federal court in a bid to block Arizona power utility Salt River Project from slapping a 60-percent electricity rate hike on rooftop solar customers—amid federal efforts to reshape electricity pricing that critics say are being rushed—a move the group described (pdf) as an obstacle to achieving "the energy transition demanded by climate science."

The Center is among the groups in Energy Justice NC. The diverse coalition seeks to end the energy stranglehold in North Carolina held by Duke Energy, which continues to invest in fossil fuel projects even as it touts clean energy and grid investments in the region.

The time for a new energy system, says the Energy Justice Program, is now, as climate change impacts increasingly strain the grid.

"Amid this climate and extinction emergency," said Su, "the U.S. can't afford to stick with the same centralized, profit-driven electricity system that drove us here in the first place. We have to seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to design a new system of accountable, equitable, truly public power."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E dividend halt for wildfire mitigation directs cash from shareholders to tree clearing, wildfire risk reduction, and probation compliance under Judge William Alsup, amid bankruptcy, Camp Fire liabilities, and power line vegetation management mandates.

Key Points

A court-ordered dividend halt funding vegetation clearance and wildfire mitigation as PG&E meets probation terms.

✅ Judge Alsup bars dividends until mitigation targets met

✅ 375,000 trees cleared near power lines in high-risk zones

✅ Measures tied to probation amid bankruptcy and liabilities

A U.S. judge said on Tuesday that PG&E may not resume paying dividends and must use the money to fund its plan for cutting down trees to reduce the risk of wildfires in California, stopping short of more costly measures he proposed earlier this year.

The new criminal probation terms for PG&E are modest compared with ones the judge had in mind in January and that PG&E said could have cost upwards of $150 billion.

The terms will, however, keep PG&E under the supervision of Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and hold the company, which also is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and whose bankruptcy plan has drawn support from wildfire victims, to its target for clearing areas around its power lines of some 375,000 trees this year.

PG&E's probation stems from its felony conviction after a deadly 2010 natural gas pipeline blast in San Bruno, California, near San Francisco, that killed eight people and injured 58 others.

PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 29 in anticipation of liabilities from wildfires, including a catastrophic 2018 blaze, the Camp Fire, for which PG&E later pleaded guilty to 85 counts in state court. It killed 86 people in the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history.

At a January hearing, Alsup, who is overseeing PG&E's probation, said he felt compelled to propose additional probation terms in the aftermath of Camp Fire. San Francisco-based PG&E expects its equipment will be found to have caused the blaze.

The probation process is separate from San Francisco-based PG&E's bankruptcy filing and from operational measures such as its pandemic response and shutoff moratorium implemented to protect customers.

As the company faces $30 billion in wildfire liabilities and bankruptcy proceedings and has opened a wildfire assistance program for affected residents, the energy company is expected to name as its new chief executive Bill Johnson, a source said on Tuesday. Johnson has been the CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority since 2013 and is retiring on Friday.

Additional probation terms imposed by Alsup on Tuesday will require PG&E to meet goals in a wildfire mitigation plan it unveiled in February.

The goals include removing 375,000 dead, dying or hazardous trees from areas at high risk of wildfires in 2019, compared with 160,000 last year.

The judge said PG&E will not be able to pay shareholders until it complies with his new probation terms.

Shares fell 2% on Tuesday to close at $17.66 on the New York Stock Exchange and are down 63% since November 2018 due to concerns about the company's bankruptcy and wildfire liabilities, though the utility has said rates are set to stabilize in 2025 as part of its long-term plan. The shares traded as low as $5.07 in January.

PG&E in December 2017 suspended its quarterly cash dividend, while continuing to pay significant property taxes to California counties, citing uncertainty about liabilities from wildfires in October of that year that struck Northern California.

PG&E paid $798 million in dividends in 2017 and $925 million in 2016, a period in which the company did a poor job of clearing areas around its power lines of hazardous trees, according to Alsup.

Money meant for shareholders should have been spent on efforts to reduce wildfire risks in recent years, Alsup said at Tuesday's hearing.

"PG&E has started way more than its share of these fires," Alsup said.

"I want to see the people of California safe," the judge added.

Lawyers for PG&E did not contest the new terms, which the company considers more feasible than terms Alsup proposed in January.

To comply with the terms Alsup proposed in January, PG&E said it would have to remove 100 million trees. The company added that shutting power lines during high winds as Alsup proposed would not be feasible because the lines traverse rural areas to service cities and suburbs.

Idling lines could also affect the power grid in other states, PG&E said.

Alsup on Tuesday said he was still considering his proposal to require PG&E to shut down power lines during windy weather to prevent tree branches from making contact and sparking wildfires linked to power lines in the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

ESCC COVID-19 Response coordinates utilities, public power, and cooperatives to protect the energy grid and electricity reliability, aligning with DOE, DHS, CDC, FERC, and NERC on continuity of operations, mutual assistance, and supply chain resilience.

Key Points

An industry government effort ensuring reliability, operations continuity and supply chain stability during COVID-19.

✅ Twice weekly ESCC calls align DOE, DHS, HHS, CDC, FERC, NERC priorities.

✅ Focus on control centers, generation, quarantine access, mutual aid.

✅ Resource Guide supports localized decisions and supply chain resilience.

The nation’s investor-owned electric companies, public power utilities, and electric cooperatives are working together to protect the energy grid as the U.S. grid addresses COVID-19 challenges and ensure continued access to safe and reliable electricity during the COVID-19 global health crisis.

The electric power industry has been planning for years, including extensive disaster planning across utilities, for an emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as countless other types of emergencies, and the industry is coordinating closely with government partners through the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC) to ensure that organizations have the resources they need to keep the lights on.

The ESCC is holding high-level coordination calls twice a week with senior leadership from the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. These calls help ensure that industry and government work together to resolve any challenges that arise during this health emergency and that electricity remains safe for customers.

“Electricity and the energy grid are indispensable to our society, and one of our greatest strengths as an industry is our ability to convene and adapt quickly to changing circumstances and challenging events,” said Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn. “Our industry plans for all types of contingencies, with examples such as local response planning, and strong industry-government coordination and cross-sector collaboration are critical to our planning and response. We appreciate the ongoing leadership and support of our government partners as we all respond to COVID-19 and power through this crisis together.”

The ESCC quickly mobilized and established strategic working groups dedicated to identifying and solving for short-, medium-, and long-term issues facing the industry during the COVID-19 pandemic, with utilities implementing necessary precautions to maintain service across regions.

The five current areas of focus are:

1. Continuity of operations at control centers, including on-site staff lockdowns when needed
2. Continuity of operations at generation facilities
3. Access to, and operations in, restricted or quarantined areas
4. Protocols for mutual assistance
5. Supply chain challenges

“The electric power industry has taken steps to prepare for the evolving coronavirus challenges, while maintaining our commitment to the communities we serve, including customer relief efforts announced by some providers,” said National Rural Electric Cooperative Association CEO Jim Matheson. “We have a strong track record of preparing for many kinds of emergencies that could impact the ability to generate and deliver electricity. While planning for this situation is unique from other business continuity planning, we are taking actions to prepare to operate with a smaller workforce, potential disruptions in the supply chain, and limited support services for an extended period of time.”

The ESCC has developed a COVID-19 Resource Guide linked here and available at electricitysubsector.org. This document was designed to support electric power industry leaders in making informed localized decisions in response to this evolving health crisis. The guide will evolve as additional recommended practices are identified and as more is learned about appropriate mitigation strategies.

“The American Public Power Association (APPA) continues to work with our communityowned public power members and our industry and government partners to gather and share upto-date information, best practices, and guidance to support them in safely maintaining operational integrity,” said APPA CEO Joy Ditto.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News