Pierre Fortin to leave Canadian Hydropower Association

Trump Offshore Wind Pledge signals a push for deregulation over renewable energy, challenging climate policy, green jobs, and coastal development while citing marine ecosystems, navigation, and energy independence amid state-federal permitting and legal hurdles.

Key Points

Trump's vow to cancel offshore wind projects favors deregulation and fossil fuels, impacting climate policy and jobs.

✅ Day-one plan to scrap offshore wind leases and permits

✅ Risks to renewable targets, grid mix, and coastal supply chains

✅ Likely court fights and state-federal regulatory conflicts

During his tenure as President of the United States, Donald Trump made numerous promises and policy proposals, many of which sparked controversy and debate. One such pledge was his vow to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency. This bold statement, while appealing to certain interests, raised concerns about its potential impact on U.S. offshore wind growth and environmental conservation efforts.

Trump's opposition to offshore wind projects stemmed from various factors, including his skepticism towards renewable energy, even as forecasts point to a $1 trillion offshore wind market in coming years, concerns about aesthetics and property values, and his focus on promoting traditional energy sources like coal and oil. Throughout his presidency, Trump prioritized deregulation and sought to roll back environmental policies introduced by previous administrations, arguing that they stifled economic growth and hindered American energy independence.

The prospect of scrapping offshore wind projects drew mixed reactions from different stakeholders. Supporters of Trump's proposal pointed to potential benefits such as preserving scenic coastal landscapes, protecting marine ecosystems, and addressing concerns about navigational safety and national security. Critics, however, raised valid concerns about the implications of such a decision on the renewable energy sector, including progress toward getting 1 GW on the grid nationwide, climate change mitigation efforts, and job creation in the burgeoning green economy.

Offshore wind energy has emerged as a promising source of clean, renewable power with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diversify the energy mix. Countries like Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Germany have made significant investments in offshore wind in Europe, demonstrating its viability as a sustainable energy solution. In the United States, offshore wind projects have gained traction in states like Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, where coastal conditions are conducive to wind energy generation.

Trump's pledge to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency raised questions about the feasibility and legality of such a move. While the president has authority over certain aspects of energy policy and regulatory oversight, the development of offshore wind projects often involves multiple stakeholders, including state governments, local communities, private developers, and federal agencies, and actions such as Interior's move on Vineyard Wind illustrate federal leverage in permitting. Any attempt to halt or reverse ongoing projects would likely face legal challenges and regulatory hurdles, potentially delaying or derailing implementation.

Moreover, Trump's stance on offshore wind projects reflected broader debates about the future of energy policy, environmental protection, and economic development. While some argued for prioritizing fossil fuel extraction and traditional energy infrastructure, others advocated for a transition towards clean, renewable energy sources, drawing on lessons from the U.K. about wind deployment, to mitigate climate change and promote sustainable development. The Biden administration, which succeeded the Trump presidency, has signaled a shift towards a more climate-conscious agenda, including support for renewable energy initiatives and commitments to rejoin international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

In hindsight, Trump's pledge to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency underscores the complexities of energy policy and the importance of balancing competing interests and priorities. While concerns about aesthetics, property values, and environmental impact are valid, addressing the urgent challenge of climate change requires bold action and innovation in the energy sector. Offshore wind energy presents an opportunity, as seen in the country's biggest offshore wind farm approved in New York, to harness the power of nature in a way that is both environmentally responsible and economically beneficial. As the United States navigates its energy future, finding common ground and forging partnerships will be essential to ensure a sustainable and prosperous tomorrow.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California energy rebate freeze disrupts heat pump incentives, HVAC upgrades, and climate funding, as federal uncertainty stalls Inflation Reduction Act support, delaying home electrification, energy efficiency gains, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions statewide.

Key Points

A statewide pause on $290M incentives for heat pumps and HVAC upgrades due to federal climate funding uncertainty.

✅ $290M program paused amid federal funding freeze

✅ Heat pump, HVAC, electrification upgrades delayed

✅ Previously approved rebates honored; new apps halted

California’s push for a more energy-efficient future has hit a significant roadblock as the state pauses a $290 million rebate program aimed at helping homeowners replace inefficient heating and cooling systems with more energy-efficient alternatives. The California Energy Commission announced the suspension of the program, citing uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze funding for various climate-related initiatives.

The Halted Program

The energy rebate program, which utilizes federal funding to encourage the use of energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps, was a crucial part of California’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing financial incentives for homeowners to upgrade to more efficient heating and cooling systems, the program aimed to make green energy solutions more accessible and affordable to residents. The rebate program had been popular, with many homeowners eager to participate in the initiative to lower their energy costs and improve the sustainability of their homes.

However, due to the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the California Energy Commission announced on Monday that it would no longer be accepting new applications for the program. The agency did clarify that it would continue to honor rebates for applications that had already been approved. The pause will remain in effect until the Trump administration provides more clarity regarding the program's future funding.

The Trump Administration’s Role

This move highlights a broader issue regarding access to federal funding for state-level energy programs. The Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding for climate-related initiatives has left many states in limbo, as previously approved federal money has not been distributed as expected. Despite federal court rulings directing the Trump administration to restore these funds, states like California are still struggling to navigate the uncertainty of climate-related financial support from the federal government.

California’s decision to pause the rebate program comes after similar actions by other states. Arizona paused a similar program just a week prior, and Rhode Island had already paused new applications earlier this year. These states are all recipients of funding from a larger $4.3 billion initiative under the Inflation Reduction Act, which is designed to help homeowners purchase energy-efficient appliances like heat pumps, water heaters, and electric cooktops.

Impact of the Freeze

The pause of California's rebate program has serious implications for both consumers and the state’s energy goals. For residents, the halt means delays in the ability to upgrade to more energy-efficient home systems, which could lead to higher energy costs in the short term, a concern amid soaring electricity prices across the state.

The $290 million program was a significant step in encouraging homeowners to invest in energy efficiency, and its suspension leaves a gap in the availability of resources for those who were hoping to make energy-saving upgrades. Many of these upgrades are not just beneficial to homeowners, but they also contribute to the state’s overall energy efficiency goals, helping to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources, even as California's dependence on fossil fuels persists, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal and State Tensions

The freeze in funding is just one of many points of tension between the Trump administration and states like California, which have pursued aggressive environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions and combating climate change. California has often found itself at odds with the federal government on environmental issues, especially under the leadership of President Trump. The state’s ambitious environmental policies have sometimes clashed with the federal government's approach, including efforts to wind down its fossil fuel industry in line with climate goals.

In this case, the freeze on climate-related funding appears to be part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to limit federal spending on environmental programs, and as regulators weigh whether the state may need more power plants, planning remains complex. While the freeze impacts states that are working to transition to clean energy, critics argue that such moves undermine efforts to tackle climate change and could slow down progress toward a greener future.

The Path Forward

For California, the next steps will depend heavily on the actions of the federal government. While the state can continue to push for climate funding in the courts, the lack of clarity around the release of federal funds creates uncertainty for state programs that rely on these resources. As California continues to navigate this funding freeze, it will need to explore alternative solutions to keep its energy efficiency programs on track, such as efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid, even in the face of federal challenges.

In the meantime, California residents and homeowners who were hoping to take advantage of the rebate program may have to wait until further clarification from the federal government is provided, even as officials warn of a looming electricity shortage in coming years. Whether the program can be restored or expanded in the future remains to be seen, but for now, the pause serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles that states face when dealing with shifting federal priorities.

As the issue unfolds, other states facing similar challenges may take cues from California’s actions, and with California exporting energy policies to Western states, broader conversations about how federal and state governments can collaborate to ensure that energy efficiency initiatives and climate goals are not sidelined due to political or budgetary differences.

California’s decision to pause its $290 million energy rebate program is a significant development in the ongoing struggle between state and federal governments over climate-related funding. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration’s freeze on energy efficiency programs has led to disruptions in state-level efforts to promote sustainability and reduce emissions. As the situation continues to evolve, both California and other states will need to consider how to move forward without relying on federal funding that may or may not be available in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Coinmint Plattsburgh Dispute spotlights cryptocurrency mining, hydropower electricity rates, a $1M security deposit, Public Service Commission rulings, municipal utility policies, and seasonal migration to Massena data centers as Bitcoin price volatility pressures operations.

Key Points

Legal and energy-cost dispute over crypto mining, a $1,019,503 deposit, and operations in Plattsburgh and Massena.

✅ PSC allows higher rates and requires large security deposits.

✅ Winter electricity spikes drove a $1M deposit calculation.

✅ Coinmint shifted capacity to Massena data centers.

A few years ago, there was a lot of buzz about the North Country becoming the next Silicon Valley of cryptocurrency, even as Maine debated a 145-mile line that could reshape regional power flows. One of the companies to flock here was Coinmint. The cryptomining company set up shop in Plattsburgh in 2017 and declared its intentions to be a good citizen.

Today, Coinmint is fighting a legal battle to avoid paying the city’s electric utility more than $1 million owed for a security deposit. In addition to that dispute, a local property manager says the firm was evicted from one of its Plattsburgh locations.

Companies like Coinmint chose to come to the North Country because of the relatively low electricity prices here, thanks in large part to the hydropower dam on the St. Lawrence River in Massena, and regionally, projects such as the disputed electricity corridor have drawn attention to transmission costs and access. Coinmint operates its North Country Data Center facilities in Plattsburgh and Massena. In both locations, racks of computer servers perform complex calculations to generate cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin.

When cryptomining began to take off in Plattsburgh, the cost of one bitcoin was skyrocketing. That brought hype around the possibility of big business and job creation in the North Country. But cryptomininers like Coinmint were using massive amounts of energy in the winter of 2017-2018, and that season, electric bills of everyday Plattsburgh residents spiked.

Many cryptomining firms operate in a state of flux, beholden to the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, even as the end to the 'war on coal' declaration did little to change utilities' choices. When the price of one bitcoin hit $20,000 in 2017, it fell by 30% just days later. That’s one reason why the price of electricity is so critical for companies like Coinmint to turn a profit. 

Plattsburgh puts the brakes on “cryptocurrency mining”
In early 2018, Plattsburgh passed a moratorium on cryptocurrency mining operations, after residents complained of higher-than-usual electric bills.

“Your electric bill’s $100, then it’s at $130. Why? It’s because these guys that are mining the bitcoins are riding into town, taking advantage of a situation,” said resident Andrew Golt during a 2018 public hearing.

Coinmint aimed to assuage the worries of residents and other businesses. “At the end of the day we want to be a good citizen in whatever communities we’re in,” Coinmint spokesman Kyle Carlton told NCPR at that 2018 meeting.

“We’re open to working with those communities to figure out whatever solutions are going to work.”

The ban was lifted in Feb. 2019. However, since it didn’t apply to companies that were already mining cryptocurrency in Plattsburgh, Coinmint has operated in the city all along.

Coinmint challenges attempt to protect ratepayers
New rules passed by the New York Public Service Commission in March 2018 allow municipal power authorities including Plattsburgh’s to charge big energy users such as Coinmint higher electricity rates, amid customer backlash in other utility deals. The new rules also require them to put down a security deposit to ensure their bills get paid.

But Coinmint disputes that deposit charge. The company has been embroiled in a legal fight for nearly a year against Plattsburgh Municipal Lighting Department (PMLD) in an attempt to avoid paying the electric utility’s security deposit bill of $1,019,503. That bill is based on an estimate of what would cover two months of electricity use if a company were to leave town without paying its electric bills.

Coinmint would not discuss the dispute on the record with NCPR. Legal documents show the firm argues the deposit charge is inflated, based on a flawed calculation resulting in a charge hundreds of thousands of dollars higher than what it should be.

“Essentially they’re arguing that they should only have to put up some average of their monthly bills without accounting for the fact that winter bills are significantly higher than the average,” said Ken Podolny, an attorney representing the Plattsburgh utility.

The company took legal action in February 2019 against PMLD in the hopes New York’s energy regulator, the Public Service Commission, would agree with Coinmint that the deposit charge was too high. An informal commission hearing officer disagreed, and ruled in October the charge was calculated correctly.

Coinmint appealed the ruling in November and a hearing on the appeal could come as soon as February.

Less than a week after Coinmint lost its initial challenge of the deposit charge, the company made a splashy announcement trumpeting its plans to “migrate its Plattsburgh, New York infrastructure to its Massena, New York location for the 2019-2020 winter season.”

The announcement made no mention of the appeal or the recent ruling against Coinmint. The company attributed its new plan to “exceptionally-high” electricity rates in Plattsburgh, as hydropower transmission projects elsewhere in New England faced their own controversies. 

"We recognize some in the Plattsburgh community have blamed our operation for pushing rates higher for everyone so, while we disagree with that assessment, we hope this seasonal migration will have a positive impact on rates for all our neighbors,” said Coinmint cofounder Prieur Leary in the press statement.

“In the event that doesn't happen, we trust the community will look for the real answers for these high costs." Prieur Leary has since been removed from the corporate team page on the company’s website.

The company still operates in Plattsburgh at one of its locations in the city. As for staff, while at least two Coinmint employees have moved from Plattsburgh to Massena, where the company operates a data center inside a former Alcoa aluminum plant, it is unclear how many people in total have made the move.

Coinmint left its second Plattsburgh location in 2019. The company would not discuss that move on the record, yet the circumstances of the departure are murky.

The local property manager of the industrial park site told NCPR, “I have no comment on our evicted tenant Coinmint.” The property owner, California’s Karex Property Management Services, also would not comment regarding the situation, noting that “all staff have been told to not discuss anything regarding our past tenant Coinmint.”

Today, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are worth a fraction of what they were back in 2017 when Coinmint came to the North Country, and now, amid a debate over Bitcoin's electricity use shaping market sentiment, the future of the entire industry here remains uncertain.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

US-Canada Electricity Tariff Dispute intensifies as proposed tariffs spur Canadian threats to restrict hydroelectric exports, risking cross-border energy supply, grid reliability, higher electricity prices, and clean energy goals in the Northeast and Midwest.

Key Points

Trade clash over tariffs and hydroelectric exports that threatens power supply, prices, and grid reliability.

✅ Potential export curbs on Canadian hydro to US markets

✅ Risks: higher prices, strained grids, reduced clean energy

✅ Diplomacy urged to avoid retaliatory trade measures

In early February 2025, escalating trade tensions between the United States and Canada have raised concerns about the future of electricity exports from Canada to the U.S. The potential imposition of tariffs by the U.S. has prompted Canadian officials to consider retaliatory measures, including restricting electricity exports and pursuing high-level talks such as Ford's Washington meeting with federal counterparts.

Background of the Trade Dispute

In late November 2024, President-elect Donald Trump announced plans to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian products, citing issues related to illegal immigration and drug trafficking. This proposal has been met with strong opposition from Canadian leaders, who view such tariffs as unjustified and detrimental to both economies, even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects among some stakeholders.

Canada's Response and Potential Retaliatory Measures

In response to the proposed tariffs, Canadian officials have discussed various countermeasures. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has threatened to cut electricity supplies to 1.5 million Americans and ban imports of U.S.-made beer and liquor. Other provinces, such as Quebec and Alberta, are also considering similar actions, though experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports due to reliability concerns.

Impact on U.S. Energy Supply

Canada is a significant supplier of electricity to the United States, particularly in regions like the Northeast and Midwest. A reduction or cessation of these exports could lead to energy shortages and increased electricity prices in affected U.S. states, with New York especially vulnerable according to regional assessments. For instance, Ontario exports substantial amounts of electricity to neighboring U.S. states, and any disruption could strain local energy grids.

Economic Implications

The imposition of tariffs and subsequent retaliatory measures could have far-reaching economic consequences. In Canada, industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, and energy could face significant challenges due to reduced access to the U.S. market, even as many Canadians support energy and mineral tariffs as leverage. Conversely, U.S. consumers might experience higher prices for goods and services that rely on Canadian imports, including energy products.

Environmental Considerations

Beyond economic factors, the trade dispute could impact environmental initiatives. Canada's hydroelectric power exports are a clean energy source that helps reduce carbon emissions in the U.S., where policymakers look to Canada for green power to meet targets. A reduction in these exports could lead to increased reliance on fossil fuels, potentially hindering environmental goals.

The escalating trade tensions between the United States and Canada, particularly concerning electricity exports, underscore the complex interdependence of the two nations. While the situation remains fluid, it highlights the need for diplomatic engagement to resolve disputes and maintain the stability of cross-border energy trade.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hinkley Point C dome lift marks a nuclear reactor milestone in Somerset, as EDF used Big Carl crane to place a 245-tonne steel roof, enabling 2027 startup amid costs, delays, and precision indoor welding.

Key Points

A 245-tonne dome lifted onto Hinkley Point C's first reactor, finishing the roof and enabling fit-out for a 2027 startup.

✅ 245-tonne steel dome lifted by Big Carl onto 44m-high reactor

✅ Indoor welding avoided weather defects seen at Flamanville

✅ Cost now £33bn; first power targeted by end of 2027

Engineers have lifted a steel roof onto a building which will house the first of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Hundreds of people helped with the delicate operation to get the 245-tonne steel dome into position.

It means the first reactor can be installed next year, ready to be switched on in June 2027.

Engineers at EDF said the "challenging job" was completed in just over an hour.

They first broke the ground on the new nuclear station in March 2017. Now, some 10,000 people work on what is Europe's largest building site.

Yet many analysts note that Europe is losing nuclear power even as demand for reliable energy grows.

They have faced delays from Covid restrictions and other recent setbacks, and the budget has doubled to £33bn, so getting the roof on the first of the two reactor buildings is a big deal.

EDF's nuclear island director Simon Parsons said it was a "fantastic night".

"Lifting the dome into place is a celebration of all the work done by a fantastic team. The smiles on people's faces this morning were something else.

"Now we can get on with the fitting of equipment, pipes and cables, including the first reactor which is on site and ready to be installed next year."

Nuclear minister Andrew Bowie hailed the "major milestone" in the building project, citing its role in the UK's green industrial revolution ambitions.

He said: "This is a key part of the UK Government's plans to revitalise nuclear."

But many still question whether Hinkley Point C will be worth all the money, especially after Hitachi's project freeze in Britain, with Roy Pumfrey of the Stop Hinkley campaign describing the project as "shockingly bad value".

Why lift the roof on?

The steel dome is bigger than the one on St Paul's Cathedral in London.

To lift it onto the 44-metre-high reactor building, they needed the world's largest land-based crane, dubbed Big Carl by engineers.

So why not just build the roof on top of the building?

The answer lies in a remote corner of Normandy in France, near a village called Flamanville.

EDF has been building a nuclear reactor there since 2007, ten years before they started in west Somerset.

The project is now a decade behind schedule and has still not been approved by French regulators.

Why? Because of cracks found in the precision welding on the roof of the reactor building.

In nuclear-powered France, they built the roof in situ, out in the open. 

Engineers have decided welding outside, exposed to wind and rain, compromised the high standards needed for a nuclear reactor.

So in Somerset they built a temporary workshop, which looks like a fair sized building itself. All the welding has been done inside, and then the completed roof was lifted into place.

Is it on time or on budget?

No, neither. When Hinkley C was first approved a decade ago, EDF said it would cost £14bn.

Four years later, in 2017, they finally started construction. By now the cost had risen to £19.5bn, and EDF said the plant would be finished by the end of 2025.

Today, the cost has risen to £33bn, and it is now hoped Hinkley C will produce electricity by the end of 2027.

"Nobody believes it will be done by 2027," said campaigner Roy Pumfrey.

"The costs keep rising, and the price of Hinkley's electricity will only get dearer," they added.

On the other hand, the increase in costs is not a problem for British energy bill payers, or the UK government.

EDF agreed to pay the full cost of construction, including any increases.

When I met Grant Shapps, then the UK Energy Secretary, at the site in April, he shrugged off the cost increases.

He said: "I think we should all be rather pleased it is not the British tax payer - it is France and EDF who are paying."

In return, the UK government agreed a set rate for Hinkley's power, called the Strike Price, back in 2013. The idea was this would guarantee the income from Hinkley Point for 35 years, allowing investors to get their money back.

Will it be worth the money?

Back in 2013, the Strike Price was set at £92.50 for each megawatt hour of power. At the time, the wholesale price of electricity was around £50/MWh, so Hinkley C looked expensive.

But since then, global shocks like the war in Ukraine have increased the cost of power substantially, and advocates argue next-gen nuclear could deliver smaller, cheaper, safer designs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News