OEB posts September's Regulated Price Plan Variance Settlement Factor

California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill aimed at expanding load flexibility in state grid planning, citing conflicts with California’s resource adequacy framework and concerns over grid reliability and energy planning uncertainty.

Why has Newsom vetoed the Bill to Codify Load Flexibility?

Governor Gavin Newsom’s veto blocks legislation that would have required the California Energy Commission to incorporate load flexibility into the state’s energy planning and policy framework, a move that has stirred debate across the clean energy sector.

✅ Argues the bill conflicts with California’s existing Resource Adequacy system

✅ Draws backlash from clean energy and grid modernization advocates

✅ Exposes ongoing tension over how to manage renewable integration and demand response

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 44, which would have required the California Energy Commission to evaluate and incorporate load management mechanisms into the state’s energy planning process. The move drew criticism from clean energy advocates who say it undermines efforts to strengthen grid reliability and reduce costs.

The bill directed the commission to adopt “upfront technical requirements and load modification protocols” that would allow load-serving entities to adjust their electrical demand forecasts. Proponents viewed this as a way to modernize California’s grid management, and to explore a revamp of electricity rates to help clean the grid, making it more responsive to demand fluctuations and renewable energy variability.

In his veto statement, Newsom said the bill was incompatible with existing energy planning frameworks, even as a looming electricity shortage remains a concern. “While I support expanding electric load flexibility, this bill does not align with the California Public Utility Commission’s Resource Adequacy framework,” he said. “As a result, the requirements of this bill would not improve electric grid reliability planning and could create uncertainty around energy resource planning and procurement processes.”

Newsom’s decision comes shortly after he signed a broad package of energy legislation that set the stage for a regional Western electricity market and extended the state’s cap-and-trade program. However, that legislative package did not include continued funding for several key grid reliability programs — including what advocates have called the world’s largest virtual power plant, a distributed network of connected devices that can balance electricity demand in real time.

Clean energy supporters saw AB 44 as a crucial step toward integrating these distributed energy resources into long-term grid planning. “With Assembly Bill 44 being vetoed, the state has missed a huge opportunity to advance common-sense policy that would have lowered costs, strengthened the grid, and unlocked the full potential of advanced energy,” said Edson Perez, California lead at Advanced Energy United.

Perez added that the setback increases pressure on lawmakers to take stronger action in the next legislative session. “The pressure is on next session to ensure that California is using all tools in its policy toolbox to build critically needed infrastructure, strengthen the grid, and bring costs down,” he said.

California’s growing use of demand response programs and virtual power plants has been central to its strategy for managing grid stress during heat waves and wildfire seasons. These systems allow utilities and customers to temporarily reduce or shift energy use, helping to prevent blackouts and reduce the need for fossil-fuel peaker plants during peak demand.

A recent report by the Brattle Group found that California’s taxpayer-funded virtual power plant could save ratepayers $206 million between 2025 and 2028 while reducing reliance on gas generation. The study, commissioned by Sunrun and Tesla Energy, highlighted the potential for flexible load management to improve both grid reliability and reduce costs, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability.

Despite these findings, Newsom’s veto signals continued tension between state policymakers and clean energy advocates over how best to modernize California’s power grid. While the governor has prioritized large-scale renewable development and regional market integration, critics argue that California’s climate policy choices risk exacerbating reliability challenges and that failing to codify load flexibility could slow progress toward a more adaptive, resilient, and affordable clean energy future.

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

Ontario-Quebec Energy Swap streamlines electricity exchange, balancing peak demand across clean grids with hydroelectric and nuclear power, enhancing reliability, capacity banking, and interprovincial load management for industry growth, EV adoption, and seasonal heating-cooling needs.

Key Points

10-year, no-cash power swap aligning peaks; hydro and nuclear enhance reliability and let Ontario bank capacity.

✅ Up to 600 MW exchanged yearly; reviews adjust volumes

✅ Peaks differ: summer A/C in Ontario, winter heating in Quebec

✅ Capacity banking enables future-year withdrawals

Ontario and Quebec have agreed to swap energy to build on an electricity deal to help each other out when electricity demands peak.

The provinces' electricity operators, the Independent Electricity System Operator holds capacity auctions and Hydro-Quebec, will trade up to 600 megawatts of energy each year, said Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith.

“The deal just makes a lot of sense from both sides,” Smith said in an interview.

“The beauty as well is that Quebec and Ontario are amongst the cleanest grids around.”

The majority of Ontario's power comes from nuclear energy while the majority of Quebec's energy comes from hydroelectric power, including Labrador power in regional transmission networks.

The deal works because Ontario and Quebec's energy peaks come at different times, Smith said.

Ontario's energy demands spike in the summer, largely driven by air conditioning on hot days, and the province has occasionally set off-peak electricity prices to provide temporary relief, he said.

Quebec's energy needs peak in the winter, mostly due to electric heating on cold days.

The deal will last 10 years, with reviews along the way to adjust energy amounts based on usage.

“With the increase in energy demand, we must adopt more energy efficiency programs like Peak Perks and intelligent measures in order to better manage peak electricity consumption,” Quebec's Energy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon wrote in a statement.

Smith said the energy deal is a straight swap, with no payments on either side, and won't reduce hydro bills as the transfer could begin as early as this winter.

Ontario will also be able to bank unused energy to save capacity until it is needed in future years, Smith said.

Both provinces are preparing for future energy needs, as electricity demands are expected to grow dramatically in the coming years with increased demand from industry and the rise of electric vehicles, and Ontario has tabled legislation to lower electricity rates to support consumers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Utilities Shift From Coal as natural gas stays cheap, renewables like wind and solar scale, Clean Power Plan uncertainty lingers, and investors, state policies, and emissions targets drive generation choices and accelerate retirements.

Key Points

A long-term shift by utilities from coal to cheap natural gas, expanding renewables, and lower-emission generation.

✅ Cheap natural gas undercuts coal on price and flexibility.

✅ Renewables costs falling; wind and solar add competitive capacity.

✅ State policies and investors sustain emissions reductions.

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to sweep away Obama-era climate change regulations, he said it would end America's "war on coal", usher in a new era of energy production and put miners back to work.

But the biggest consumers of U.S. coal - power generating companies - remain unconvinced about efforts to replace Obama's power plant overhaul with a lighter-touch approach.

Reuters surveyed 32 utilities with operations in the 26 states that sued former President Barack Obama's administration to block its Clean Power Plan, the main target of Trump's executive order. The bulk of them have no plans to alter their multi-billion dollar, years-long shift away from coal, suggesting demand for the fuel will keep falling despite Trump's efforts.

The utilities gave many reasons, mainly economic: Natural gas - coal’s top competitor - is cheap and abundant; solar and wind power costs are falling; state environmental laws remain in place; and Trump's regulatory rollback may not survive legal challenges, as rushed pricing changes draw warnings from energy groups.

Meanwhile, big investors aligned with the global push to fight climate change – such as the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund – have been pressuring U.S. utilities in which they own stakes to cut coal use.

"I’m not going to build new coal plants in today’s environment," said Ben Fowke, CEO of Xcel Energy, which operates in eight states and uses coal for about 36 percent of its electricity production. "And if I’m not going to build new ones, eventually there won’t be any."

Of the 32 utilities contacted by Reuters, 20 said Trump's order would have no impact on their investment plans; five said they were reviewing the implications of the order; six gave no response. Just one said it would prolong the life of some of its older coal-fired power units.

North Dakota's Basin Electric Power Cooperative was the sole utility to identify an immediate positive impact of Trump's order on the outlook for coal.

"We're in the situation where the executive order takes a lot of pressure off the decisions we had to make in the near term, such as whether to retrofit and retire older coal plants," said Dale Niezwaag, a spokesman for Basin Electric. "But Trump can be a one-termer, so the reprieve out there is short."

Trump's executive order triggered a review aimed at killing the Clean Power Plan and paving the way for the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule to replace it, though litigation is ongoing. The Obama-era law would have required states, by 2030, to collectively cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels. It was designed as a primary strategy in U.S. efforts to fight global climate change.

The U.S. coal industry, without increases in domestic demand, would need to rely on export markets for growth. Shipments of U.S. metallurgical coal, used in the production of steel, have recently shown up in China following a two-year hiatus - in part to offset banned shipments from North Korea and temporary delays from cyclone-hit Australian producers.

RETIRING AND RETROFITTING

Coal had been the primary fuel source for U.S. power plants for the last century, but its use has fallen more than a third since 2008 after advancements in drilling technology unlocked new reserves of natural gas.

Hundreds of aging coal-fired power plants have been retired or retrofitted. Huge coal mining companies like Peabody Energy Corp and Arch Coal fell into bankruptcy, and production last year hit its lowest point since 1978.

The slide appears likely to continue: U.S. power companies now expect to retire or convert more than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired plants in 2017 after shutting almost 13,000 MW last year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration and Thomson Reuters data.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, acknowledged Trump's efforts would not return the coal industry to its "glory days," but offered some hope.

"There may not be immediate plans for utilities to bring on more coal, but the future is always uncertain in this market," he said.

Many of the companies in the Reuters survey said they had been focused on reducing carbon emissions for a decade or more while tracking 2017 utility trends that reinforce long-term planning, and were hesitant to change direction based on shifting political winds in Washington D.C.

"Utility planning typically takes place over much longer periods than presidential terms of office," Berkshire Hathaway Inc-owned Pacificorp spokesman Tom Gauntt said.

Several utilities also cited falling costs for wind and solar power, which are now often as cheap as coal or natural gas, thanks in part to government subsidies for renewable energy and recent FERC decisions affecting the grid.

In the meantime, activist investors have increased pressure on U.S. utilities to shun coal.

In the last year, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, has excluded more than a dozen U.S. power companies - including Xcel, American Electric Power Co Inc and NRG Energy Inc - from its investments because of their reliance on coal-fired power.

Another eight companies, including Southern Co and NorthWestern Corp, are "under observation" by the fund.

Wyoming-based coal miner Cloud Peak Energy said it doesn't blame utilities for being lukewarm to Trump's order.

"For eight years, if you were a utility running coal, you got the hell kicked out of you," said Richard Reavey, a spokesman for the company. "Are you going to turn around tomorrow and say, 'Let's buy lots of coal plants'? Pretty unlikely."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Hydro Interim Rate Increase faces PUB scrutiny as consumers coalition challenges a 5% electricity rate hike, citing drought planning, retained earnings, affordability, transparency, and impacts on fixed incomes and northern communities.

Key Points

A proposed 5% electricity rate hike under PUB review, opposed by consumers citing drought planning and affordability.

✅ Coalition backs 2% hike; 5% seen as undue burden

✅ PUB review sought; interim process lacks transparency

✅ Retained earnings, efficiencies cited to offset drought

The Consumers Coalition is urging the Public Utilities Board (PUB) to reject Manitoba Hydro’s current interim rate increase application, amid ongoing debates about Hydro governance and policy.

Hydro is requesting a five per cent jump in electricity rates starting on January 1, claiming drought conditions warrant the increase but the coalition disagrees, saying a two per cent increase would be sufficient.

The coalition, which includes Harvest Manitoba, the Consumers’ Association of Canada-Manitoba, and the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, said a 5 per cent rate increase would put an unnecessary strain on consumer budgets, especially for those on fixed incomes or living up north.

"We feel that, in many ways, Manitobans have already paid for this drought," said Gloria Desorcy, executive director of the Consumers’ Association of Canada - Manitoba.

The coalition argues that hydroelectric companies already plan for droughts and that hydro should be using past earnings to mitigate any losses.

The group claims drought conditions would have added about 0.8 per cent to Hydro’s bottom line. They said remaining revenues from a two per cent increase could then be used to offset the increased costs of major projects like the Keeyask generating station and service its growing debt obligations.

The group also said Hydro is financially secure and is projecting a positive net income of $112 million next year without rate increases, even as utility profits can swing with market conditions, assuming the drought doesn’t continue.

They argue Hydro can use retained earnings as a tool to mitigate losses, rather than relying on deferral accounting that shifts costs, and find further efficiencies within the corporation.

"So we said two per cent, which is much more palatable for consumers especially at the time when so many consumers are struggling with so many higher bills,” said Desorcy.

According to the coalition’s calculations, that works out to a $2-4 increase per month, and debates such as ending off-peak pricing in Ontario show how design affects bills, depending on whether electricity is used for heating, but it could be higher.

The coalition said their proposed two per cent rate increase should be applied to all Manitoba Hydro customers and have a set expiration date of January 1, 2023.

Another issue, according to the coalition, is the process of an interim rate application does not provide any meaningful transparency and accountability, whereas recent OEB decisions in Ontario have outlined more robust public processes.

Desorcy said the next step is up to the PUB, though board upheaval at Hydro One in Ontario shows how governance shifts can influence outcomes.

The board is expected to decide on the proposed increase in the next couple of weeks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Canadian Hydropower Transmission delivers HVDC clean energy via New England Clean Energy Connect and Champlain Hudson Power Express, linking HydroQuébec to Maine and New York grids for renewable energy, decarbonization, and lower wholesale electricity rates.

Key Points

HVDC delivery of HydroQuébec power to New England and New York via NECEC and CHPE, cutting emissions and costs.

✅ 1,200 MW via NECEC; 1,000 MW via CHPE.

✅ HVDC routes: 145-mile NECEC and 333-mile CHPE.

✅ Debates: land impacts, climate justice, wholesale rates.

As the sole residents of unorganized territory T5 R7 deep within Maine's North Woods, Duane Hanson and his wife, Sally Kwan, have watched the land around them—known for its natural beauty, diverse wildlife and recreational fishing—transformed by decades of development. 

But what troubles them most is what could happen in the next few months. State and corporate officials are pushing for construction of a 53-mile-long power line corridor cutting right through the woods and abutting the wild lands surrounding Hanson's property. 

If its proponents succeed, Hanson fears the corridor may represent the beginning of the end of his ability to live "off the land" away from the noise of technology-obsessed modern society. Soon, that noise may be in his backyard. 

"I moved here to be in the pristine wilderness," said Hanson.
 
With his life in what he considers the last "wild" place left on the East Coast on the line, the stakes have never felt higher to Hanson—and many across New England, as well.

The corridor is part of the New England Clean Energy Connect, one of two major and highly controversial transmission line projects meant to deliver Canadian hydropower from the government-owned utility HydroQuébec, in a province that has closed the door on nuclear power, to New England electricity consumers. 

As New England states rush to green their electric grids and combat the accelerating climate crisis, the simultaneous push from Canada to expand the market for hydroelectric power from its vast water resources, including Manitoba's clean energy, has offered these states a critical lifeline at just the right moment. 

The other big hydropower transmission line project will deliver 1,000 megawatts of power, or enough to serve approximately one million residential customers, to the New York City metropolitan area, which includes the city, Long Island, and parts of the Hudson Valley, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. 

The 333-mile-long Champlain Hudson Power Express project will consist of two high voltage direct current cables running underground and underwater from Canada, beneath Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, to Astoria, Queens. 

There, the Champlain Hudson project will interconnect to a sector of the New York electricity grid where city and corporate officials say the hydropower supplied can help reduce the fossil fuels that currently comprise significantly more of the base load than in other parts of the state. Though New York has yet to finalize a contract with HydroQuébec over its hydropower purchase, developers plan to start construction on the $2.2 billion project in 2021 and say it will be operational in 2025. 

The New England project consists of 145 miles of new HVDC transmission line that will run largely above ground from the Canadian border, through Maine to Massachusetts. The $1 billion project, funded by Massachusetts electricity consumers, is expected to deliver 1,200 megawatts of clean energy to the New England energy grid, becoming the region's largest clean energy source. 

Central Maine Power, which will construct the Maine transmission corridor, says the project will decrease wholesale electric rates and create thousands of jobs. Company officials expect to receive all necessary permits and begin construction by the year's end, with the project completed and in service by 2020. 

With only months until developers start making both projects on-the-ground realities, they have seized public attention within, and beyond, their regions. 

Hanson is one among many concerned New England and New York residents who've joined the ranks of environmental activists in a contentious battle with public and corporate officials over the place of Canadian hydropower in their states' clean energy futures. 

Officials and transmission line proponents say importing Canadian hydropower offers an immediate and feasible way to help decarbonize electricity portfolios in New York and New England and to address existing transmission constraints that limit cross-border flows today, supporting their broader efforts to combat climate change. 

But some environmental activists say hydropower has a significant carbon footprint of its own. They fear the projects will make states look "greener" at the expense of the local environment, Indigenous communities, and ultimately, the climate. 

"We're talking about the most environmentally and economically just pathway" to decarbonization, said Annel Hernandez, associate director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. "Canadian hydro is not going to provide that." 

To that end, environmental groups opposing Canadian hydropower say New York and New England should seize the moment to expedite local development of wind and solar power. 

Paul Gallay, president of the nonprofit environmental organization Riverkeeper—which withdrew its initial support for the Champlain Hudson Power Express last November— believes New York has the capacity to develop enough in-state renewable energy sources to meet its clean energy goals, without the new transmission line. 

Yet New York City's analysis shows clearly that Canadian hydropower is critical for its clean energy strategy, said Dan Zarrilli, director of OneNYC and New York City's chief climate policy adviser. 

"We need every bit of clean energy we can get our hands on," he said, to meet the city's goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and help achieve the state's clean energy mandates. 

Removing Canadian hydropower from the equation, said Zarilli, would commit the city to the "unacceptable outcome" of burning more gas. The city's marginalized communities would likely suffer most from the resulting air pollution and associated health impacts. 

While the two camps debate Canadian hydropower's carbon footprint and what climate justice requires, this much is clear: When it comes to pursuing a zero-carbon future, there are no easy answers. 

Hydropower's Carbon Footprint
Many people take for granted that because hydropower production doesn't involve burning fossil fuels, it's a carbon-neutral endeavor. But that's not always the case, depending on where hydropower is sourced. 

Large-scale hydropower projects often involve the creation of hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, and, in some cases, repowering existing dams to generate clean electricity. The release and flow of water from the reservoir through the dam provides the energy necessary to generate hydropower, which long-distance power lines, or transmission lines, carry to its intended destination—in this case, New England and New York. 

The initial process of flooding land to create a hydroelectric reservoir can have a sizable carbon footprint, especially in heavily vegetated areas. It causes the vegetation and soil underwater to decompose, releasing carbon dioxide and methane—a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide. 

Hydropower accounts for 60 percent of Canada's electricity generation, and HydroQuébec has planned to increase capacity to 37,000 MW in 2021, with the nation second only to China in the percentage of the world's total hydroelectricity it generates. By contrast, hydropower only accounts for seven percent of U.S. utility-scale electricity generation, making it a foreign concept to many Americans. 

As New England works to introduce substantial amounts of Canadian hydropower to its electricity grid, hydropower proponents are promoting it as a prime source for clean electricity, and new NB Power agreements are expanding regional transfers within Canada as well. 

Last fall, Central Maine Power formed its own political action committee, Clean Energy Matters, to advance the New England hydropower project. Together with HydroQuébec, the Maine utility has spent nearly $17 million campaigning for the project this year. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News