Westinghouse plant design rejected

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Western Denmark Negative Electricity Prices stem from wind energy oversupply, grid congestion, and limited interconnector capacity via Nord Pool and TenneT, underscoring electrification needs, renewable integration, special regulation, and system flexibility.

Key Points

They are sub-zero power prices from wind oversupply, weak interconnectors, low demand, and balancing needs.

✅ Caused by high wind output, low demand, and export bottlenecks

✅ Limited Nord Pool interconnector capacity depresses prices

✅ Special regulation and district heating absorb excess power

A downturn in the cable connection to Norway and Sweden, together with low electricity consumption and high electricity production, has pushed down European electricity prices to a negative level in Western Denmark.

A sign that the electrification of society is urgently needed, says Soren Klinge, head of electricity market at Wind Denmark today.

The heavy winds during the first weekend of July, unlike periods when cheap wind power wanes in the UK, have not only had consequences for the Danes who had otherwise been looking forward to spending their first days at home in the garden or at the beach. It has also pushed down prices in the electricity market to a negative level, which especially the West Danish wind turbine owners have had to notice.

'The electricity market is currently affected by an unfortunate coincidence of various factors that have a negative impact on the electricity price: a reduced export capacity to the other Nordic countries, a low electricity consumption and a high electricity generation, reflecting broader concerns over dispatchable power shortages in Europe today. Unfortunately, the coincidence of these three factors means that the price base falls completely out of the market. This is another sign that the electrification of society is urgently needed, 'explains Soren Klinge, electricity market manager at Wind Denmark.

According to the European power exchange Nord Pool Spot, where UK peak power prices are also tracked, the cable connection to Sweden is expected to return to full capacity from 19 July. The connection between Jutland and Norway is only expected to return to full capacity in early September.

2000 MWh / hour in special regulation

During the windy weather on Monday morning, July 6, up to 2000 MWh / hour was activated at national level in the form of so-called special regulation. Special regulation is the designation that the German system operator TenneT switches off Danish electricity generation at cogeneration plants and wind turbines in order to help with the balancing of the German power system during such events. In addition, electric boilers at the cogeneration plants also contribute by using the electricity from the electricity grid and converting it to district heating for the benefit of Danish homes and businesses.

'The Danish wind turbines are probably the source of most of the special regulation, because there are very few cogeneration units to down-regulate electricity generation. Of course, it is positive to see that we have a high degree of flexibility in the wind-based power system at home. That being said, Denmark does not really get ahead with the green transition, even as its largest energy company plans to stop using coal by 2023, until we are able to raise electricity consumption based on renewable energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Electricity Market Reform Opposition highlights nine states resisting an overhaul of the wholesale power market amid gas price spikes, urging energy efficiency, interconnection targets, and EU caution rather than redesigns affecting renewables.

Key Points

Nine EU states reject overhauling wholesale power pricing, favoring efficiency and prudent policy over redesigns.

✅ Nine states oppose redesign of wholesale power market.

✅ Call for efficiency and 15% interconnection by 2030.

✅ Ministers to debate responses amid gas-driven price spikes.

Germany, Denmark, Ireland and six other European countries said on Monday they would not support a reform of the EU electricity market, ahead of an emergency meeting of energy ministers to discuss emergency measures and the recent price spike.

European gas and power prices soared to record high levels in autumn and have remained high, prompting countries including Spain and France to urge Brussels to redesign its electricity market rules.

Nine countries on Monday poured cold water on those proposals, in a joint statement that said they "cannot support any measure that conflicts with the internal gas and electricity market" such as an overhaul of the wholesale power market altogether.

"As the price spikes have global drivers, we should be very careful before interfering in the design of internal energy markets," the statement said.

"This will not be a remedy to mitigate the current rising energy prices linked to fossil fuels markets across Europe."

Austria, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Latvia and the Netherlands signed the statement, which called instead for more measures to save energy and a target for a 15% interconnection of the EU electricity market by 2030.

European energy ministers meet tomorrow to discuss their response to the price spike, including gas price cap strategies under consideration. Most countries are using tax cuts, subsidies and other national measures to shield consumers against the impact higher gas prices are having on energy bills, but EU governments are struggling to agree on a longer term response.

Spain has led calls for a revamp of the wholesale power market in response to the price spike, amid tensions between France and Germany over reform, arguing that the system is not supporting the EU's green transition.

Under the current system, the wholesale electricity price is set by the last power plant needed to meet overall demand for power. Gas plants often set the price in this system, which Spain said was unfair as it results in cheap renewable energy being sold for the same price as costlier fossil fuel-based power.

The European Commission has said it will investigate whether the EU power market is functioning well, but that there is no evidence to suggest a different system would have better protected countries against the surge in energy costs, and that rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears during such spikes.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Britain Coal-Free Week signals a historic shift to clean energy, with zero coal power, increased natural gas and renewables, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and ambitious UK energy policy targeting a 2025 coal phase-out and decarbonization.

Key Points

A seven-day period with no coal power in the UK, signaling cleaner energy and progress on emission reductions.

✅ Seven days of zero coal generation in the UK

✅ Natural gas and renewables dominated the electricity mix

✅ Coal phase-out targeted by 2025; emissions cuts planned

For the first time in a century, Britain weaned itself off of coal consumption for an entire week, a coal-free power record for the country.

Reuters reported that Britain went seven days without relying on any power generated by coal-powered stations as the share of coal in the grid continued to hit record lows.

The accomplishment is symbolic of a shift to more clean energy sources, with wind surpassing coal in 2016 and the UK leading the G20 in wind share as of recent years; Britain was home to the first coal-powered plant back in the 1880s.

Today, Britain has some aggressive plans in place to completely eliminate its coal power generation permanently by 2025, with a plan to end coal power underway. In addition, Britain aims to cut its total greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels within the next 30 years.

Natural gas was the largest source of power for Britain in 2018, providing 39 percent of the nation's total electricity, as the Great Britain generation dashboard shows. Coal contributed only about 5 percent, though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to reports. Burning natural gas also produces greenhouse gases, but it is much more efficient and greener than coal.

In the U.S., 63.5 percent of electricity generated in 2018 came from fossil fuels. About 35.1 percent was produced from natural gas and 27.4 percent came from coal. In addition, 19.3 percent of electricity came from nuclear power and 17.1 percent came from renewable energy sources, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One-Avista acquisition sparks Idaho regulatory scrutiny over foreign ownership, utility merger impacts, rate credits, and public interest, as FERC and FCC approvals advance and consumers question governance, service reliability, and long-term rate stability.

Key Points

A cross-border utility merger proposal with Idaho oversight, weighing foreign ownership, rates, and reliability.

✅ Idaho PUC review centers on public interest and rate impacts.

✅ FERC and FCC approvals granted; state decisions pending.

✅ Avista to retain name and Spokane HQ post-transaction.

“Please don’t sell us to Canada.” That refrain, or versions of it, is on full display at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which admittedly isn’t everyone’s go-to entertainment site. But it is vitally important for this reason: the first big test of the expansionist dreams of the politically tempest-tossed Hydro One, facing political risk as it navigates markets, rests with its successful acquisition of Avista Corp., provider of electric generation, transmission and distribution to retail customers spread from Oregon to Washington to Montana and Idaho and up into Alaska.

The proposed deal — announced last summer, but not yet consummated — marks the first time the publicly traded Hydro One has embarked upon the acquisition of a U.S. utility. And if Idahoans spread from Boise to Coeur d’Alene to Hayden are any indication, they are not at all happy with the idea of foreign ownership. Here’s Lisa McCumber, resident of Hayden: “I am stating my objection to this outrageous merger/takeover. Hydro One charges excessive fees to the people it provides for, this is a monopoly beyond even what we are used to. I, in no way, support or as a customer, agree with the merger of this multi-billion-dollar, foreign, company.”

#google#

Or here’s Debra Bentley from Coeur d’Alene: “Fewer things have more control over a nation than its power source. In an age where we are desperately trying to bring American companies back home and ‘Buy American’ is somewhat of a battle cry, how is it even possible that it would or could be allowed for this vital necessity … to be controlled by a foreign entity?”

Or here’s Spencer Hutchings from Sagle: “This is an incredibly bad idea.”

There are legion of similar emails from concerned consumers, and the Maine transmission line debate offers a parallel in public opposition.

The rationale for the deal? Last fall Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt testified before the Idaho commission, which regulates all gas, water and electricity providers in the state. “Hydro One is a pure-play transmission and distribution utility located solely within Ontario,” Schmidt told commissioners. “It seeks diversification both in terms of jurisdictions and service areas. The proposed Transaction with Avista achieves both goals by expanding Hydro One into the U.S. Pacific Northwest and expanding its operations to natural gas distribution and electric generation. The proposed Transaction with Avista will deliver the increased scale and benefits that come from being a larger player in the utility industry.”

Translation: now that it is a publicly traded entity, Hydro needs to demonstrate a growth curve to the investment community. The value to you and me? Arguable. This is a transaction framed as a benefit to shareholders, one that won’t cause harm to customers. Premier Kathleen Wynne is feeling the pain of selling off control of an essential asset. In his testimony to the commission, Schmidt noted that the Avista acquisition would take the province’s Hydro ownership to under 45 per cent. (The Electricity Act technically prevents the sale of shares that would take the government’s ownership position below 40 per cent, though acquisitions appear to allow further dilution. )

Stratospheric compensation, bench-marked against other chief executives who enjoy similarly outsized rewards, is part of this game. I have written about Schmidt’s unconscionable compensation before, but that was when he was making a relatively modest $4 million. Relative, that is, to his $6.2 million in 2017 compensation ($3.5 million of that is in the form of share based awards).

Should the acquisition of Avista be approved, amendments to the CIC, or change in control agreements, for certain named Avista executive officers will allow them to voluntarily terminate their employment without “good reason.” That includes Scott Morris, the company’s CEO, who will exit with severance of $6.9 million (U.S.) and additional benefits taking the total to a potential $15.7 million.

Back to the deal: cost savings over time could be achieved, Schmidt continued in his testimony, though he was unable to quantify those. The integration between the two companies, he promised, will be “seamless.” Retail customers in Idaho, Washington and Oregon would benefit from proposed “Rate Credits” equalling an estimated $15.8 million across five years, even as Hydro One seeks to redesign its bills in Ontario. Idahoans would see a one per cent rate decrease through that period.

While Avista would become a wholly owned Hydro subsidiary, it would retain its name, and its headquarters in Spokane, Wash. In the case of Idaho specifically, a proposed settlement in April, subject to final approval by the commission, stipulates agreements on everything from staffing to governance to community contributions.

Will that meet the test? It’s up to the commission to determine whether the proposed transaction will keep a lid on rates and is “consistent with the public interest.” Hydro One is hoping for a decision from regulatory agencies in all the named states by mid-August and a closing date by the end of September, though U.S. regulators can ultimately determine the fate of such deals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted its approval in January, followed last week by the Federal Communications Commission. Washington and Alaska have reached settlement agreements. These too are pending final state approvals.

The $5.3-billion deal (or $6.7 billion Canadian) is subject to ongoing hearings in Idaho, and elsewhere rate hikes face opposition as hearings begin. Members of the public are encouraged to have their say. The public comment deadline is June 27.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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