U.S. adds wind energy to 400,000 homes

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

Key Points

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

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

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

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

India Nuclear Generation Shortfall highlights missed five-year plan targets due to uranium fuel scarcity, commissioning delays at Kudankulam, PFBR slippage, and PHWR equipment bottlenecks under IAEA safeguards and domestic supply constraints.

Key Points

A gap between planned and actual nuclear output due to fuel shortages, reactor delays, and first-of-a-kind hurdles.

✅ Fuel scarcity pre-2009-10 constrained unsafeguarded reactors.

✅ Kudankulam delays from protests, litigation, and remobilisation.

✅ FOAK PHWR equipment bottlenecks and PFBR slippage.

A lack of available domestically produced nuclear fuel and delays in constructing and commissioning nuclear power plants, including first-of-a-kind plants and the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), meant that India failed to meet its nuclear generation targets under the governmental plans over the decade to 2017, even as global project milestones were being recorded elsewhere.

India's nuclear generation target under its 11th five-year plan, covering the period 2007-2012, was 163,395 million units (MUs) and the 12th five-year Plan (2012-17) was 241,748 MUs, Minister of state for the Department of Atomic Energy and the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh told parliament on 6 February. Actual nuclear generation in those periods was 109,642 MUs and 183,488 MUs respectively, Singh said in a written answer to questions in the Lok Sabah.

Singh attributed the shortfall in generation to a lack of availability of the necessary quantities of domestically produced fuel during the three years before 2009-2010; delays to the commissioning of two 1000 MWe nuclear power plants at Kudankulam due to local protests and legal challenges; and delays in the completion of two indigenously designed pressurised heavy water reactors and the PFBR.

Kudankulam 1 and 2 are VVER-1000 pressurised water reactors (PWRs) supplied by Russia's Atomstroyexport under a Russian-financed contract. The units were built by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and were commissioned and are operated by NPCIL under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, with supervision from Russian specialists, while China's nuclear program advanced on a steady development track in the same period. Construction of the units - the first PWRs to enter operation in India - began in 2002.

Singh said local protests resulted in the halt of commissioning work at Kudankulam for nine months from September 2011 to March 2012, when he said project commissioning had been at its peak. As a consequence, additional time was needed to remobilise the workforce and contractors, he said. Litigation by anti-nuclear groups, and compliance with supreme court directives, impacted commissioning in 2013, he said. Unit 1 entered commercial operation in December 2014 and unit 2 in April 2017.

Delays in the manufacture and supply by domestic industry of critical equipment for first-of-a-kind 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors -  Kakrapar units 3 and 4, and Rajasthan units 7 and 8 - has led to delays in the completion of those units, the minister said, as well as noting the delay in completion of the PFBR, which is being built at Kalpakkam by Bhavini. In answer to a separate question, Singh said the PFBR is in an "advance stage of integrated commissioning" and is "expected to approach first criticality by the year 2020."

Eight of India's operating nuclear power plants are not under IAEA safeguards and can therefore only use indigenously-sourced uranium. The other 14 units operate under IAEA safeguards and can use imported uranium. The Indian government has taken several measures to secure fuel supplies for reactors in operation and under construction, amid coal supply rationing pressures elsewhere in the power sector, concluding fuel supply contracts with several countries for existing and future reactors under IAEA Safeguards and by "augmentation" of fuel supplies from domestic sources, Singh said.

Kakrapar 3 and 4, with Kakrapar 3 criticality already reported, and Rajasthan 7 and 8 are all currently expected to enter service in 2022, according to World Nuclear Association information.

Joint venture discussions

In February 2016 the government amended the Atomic Energy Act to allow NPCIL to form joint venture companies with other public sector undertakings (PSUs) for involvement in nuclear power generation and possibly other aspects of the fuel cycle, reflecting green industrial strategies shaping future reactor waves globally. In answer to another question, Singh confirmed that NPCIL has entered into joint ventures with NTPC Limited (National Thermal Power Corporation, India's largest power company) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Two joint venture companies - Anushakti Vidhyut Nigam Limited and NPCIL-Indian Oil Nuclear Energy Corporation Limited - have been incorporated, and discussions on possible projects to be set up by the joint venture companies are in progress.

An exploratory discussion had also been held with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Singh said. Indian Railways - which has in the past been identified as a potential joint venture partner for NPCIL - had "conveyed that they were not contemplating entering into an MoU for setting up of nuclear power plants," Singh said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

V.C. Summer nuclear plant leak update: Dominion Energy repaired a valve in the reactor cooling system; radioactive water stayed within containment, NRC oversight continues as power output ramps toward full operation.

Key Points

A minor valve leak in the reactor cooling system contained onsite; Dominion repaired it as the plant resumes power.

✅ Valve leak in piping to steam generators, not environmental release.

✅ Radioactive water remained in containment, monitored per NRC rules.

✅ Plant ramping from 17% power; full operations may take days.

The V.C. Summer nuclear power plant, which has been shut down since early November because of a pipe leak, is expected to begin producing energy in a few days, a milestone comparable to a new U.S. reactor startup reported recently.

Dominion Energy says it has fixed the small leak in a pipe valve that allowed radioactive water to drip out. The company declined to say when the plant would be fully operational, but spokesman Ken Holt said that can take several days, amid broader discussions about the stakes of early nuclear closures across the industry.

The plant was at 17 percent power Wednesday, he said, as several global nuclear project milestones continue to be reported this year.

Holt, who said Dominion is still investigating the cause, said water that leaked was part of the reactor cooling system. While the water came in contact with nuclear fuel in the reactor, the water never escaped the plant's containment building and into the environment, Holt said.

He characterized the valve leak as '"uncommon" but not unexpected. The nuclear leak occurred in piping that links the nuclear reactor with the power plant's steam generators. Hundreds of pipes are in that part of the nuclear plant, a complexity often cited in the energy debate over struggling nuclear plants nationwide.

"There is always some level of leakage when you are operating, but it is contained and monitored, and when it rises to a certain level, you may take action to stop it," Holt said.

A nuclear safety watchdog has criticized Dominion for not issuing a public notice about the leak, but both the company and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission say the amount was so small it did not require notice.

The V.C. Summer Nuclear plant is about 25 miles northwest of Columbia in Fairfield County. It was licensed in the early 1980s. At one point, Dominion's predecessor, SCE&G, partnered with state owned Santee Cooper to build two more reactors there, even as new reactors in Georgia were taking shape. But the companies walked away from the project in 2017, citing high costs and troubles with its chief contractor, Westinghouse, even as closures such as Three Mile Island's shutdown continued to influence policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Firefighter Cancer Risks: lithium-ion battery fires, toxic metals like nickel and chromium, hazardous smoke plumes, and prolonged exposure threaten first responders; SCBA use, decontamination, and evidence-based protocols help reduce occupational health impacts.

Key Points

Health hazards from EV battery fires exposing responders to toxic metals and smoke, elevating long-term cancer risk.

✅ Nickel and chromium in EV smoke linked to lung and sinus cancers

✅ Use SCBA, on-scene decon, and post-incident cleaning to cut exposure

✅ Adopt EV fire SOPs: cooling, monitoring, isolation, air monitoring

As electric vehicles (EVs) become more popular, the EV fire risks to firefighters are becoming an increasing concern. These fires, fueled by the high-capacity lithium-ion batteries in EVs, produce dangerous chemical exposures that could have serious long-term health implications for first responders.

Claudine Buzzo, a firefighter and cancer survivor, knows firsthand the dangers that come with the profession. She’s faced personal health battles, including rare pancreatic cancer and breast cancer, both of which she attributes to the hazards of firefighting. Now, as EV adoption increases and some research links adoption to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local communities, Buzzo and her colleagues are concerned about how EV fires might add to their already heavy exposure to harmful chemicals.

The fire risks associated with EVs are different from those of traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez, who is leading a study at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, explains that the high concentrations of metals released in the smoke from an EV fire are linked to various cancers. For instance, nickel, a key component in EV batteries, is associated with lung, nasal, and laryngeal cancers, while chromium, another metal found in some EV batteries, is linked to lung and sinus cancers.

Research from the Firefighter Cancer Initiative indicates that the plume of smoke from an EV fire contains significantly higher concentrations of these metals than fires from traditional vehicles. This raises the risk of long-term health problems for firefighters who respond to such incidents.

While the Electric Vehicle Association acknowledges the risks associated with various types of vehicle fires, they maintain that the lithium-ion batteries in EVs may not present a significantly higher risk than other common fire hazards, even as broader assessments suggest EVs are not a silver bullet for climate goals. Nonetheless, the growing body of research is causing concern among health experts, urging for further studies into how these new types of fires could affect firefighter health and how upstream electricity generation, where 18% of electricity in 2019 came from fossil fuels in Canada, factors into overall risk perceptions.

Fire departments and health researchers are working to understand the full scope of these risks and are emphasizing the importance of protective gear, such as self-contained breathing apparatuses, to minimize exposure during EV fire responses, while also considering questions like grid impacts during charging operations and EV sustainability improvements in different regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

PG&E Drum Fire Cause identified as a power line failure in Santa Barbara County, with arcing electricity igniting vegetation near Buellton on Drum Canyon Road; 696 acres burned as investigators and CPUC review PG&E safety.

Key Points

A failed PG&E power line sparked the 696-acre Drum Fire near Buellton; the utility is conducting its own probe.

✅ Power line failed between poles, arcing ignited vegetation.

✅ 696 acres burned; no structures damaged or injuries.

✅ PG&E filed CPUC incident report; ongoing investigation.

A downed Pacific Gas and Electric Co. power line was the cause of the Drum fire that broke out June 14 on Drum Canyon Road northwest of Buellton, a reminder that a transformer explosion can also spark multiple fires, the Santa Barbara County Fire Department announced Thursday.

The fire broke out about 12:50 p.m. north of Highway 246 and burned about 696 acres of wildland before firefighters brought it under control, although no structures were damaged or mass outages like the Los Angeles power outage occurred, according to an incident summary.

A team of investigators pinpointed the official cause as a power line that failed between two utility poles and fell to the ground, and as downed line safety tips emphasize, arcing electricity ignited the surrounding vegetation, said County Fire Department spokesman Capt. Daniel Bertucelli.

In response, a PG&E spokesman said the utility is conducting its own investigation and does not have access to whatever data investigators used, and, as the ATCO regulatory penalty illustrates, such matters can draw significant oversight, but he noted the company filed an electric incident report on the wire with the California Public Utilities Commission on June 14.

"We are grateful to the first responders who fought the 2020 Drum fire in Santa Barbara County and helped make sure that there were no injuries or fatalities, outcomes not always seen in copper theft incidents, and no reports of structures damaged or burned," PG&E spokesman Mark Mesesan said.

"While we are continuing to conduct our own investigation into the events that led to the Drum fire, and as the Site C watchdog inquiry shows, oversight bodies can seek more transparency, PG&E does not have access to the Santa Barbara County Fire Department's report."

He said PG&E remains focused on reducing wildfire risk across its service area while limiting the scope and duration of public safety power shutoffs, including strategies like line-burying decisions adopted by other utilities, and that the safety of customers and communities it serves are its most important responsibility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News