Hitting the “green ceiling”

Rolls-Royce and Exelon UKSMR Partnership accelerates factory-built small modular reactors, nuclear power, clean energy, 440MW units, advanced manufacturing, fleet deployment, net zero goals, and resilient, low-cost baseload generation in the UK and globally.

Key Points

A partnership to deploy factory-built SMR stations, providing 440MW low-carbon baseload for the UK and export markets.

✅ 440MW factory-built SMR units with rapid modular assembly

✅ Exelon to operate and enhance high capacity factors

✅ Supports UK net zero, jobs, and export-led manufacturing

Rolls-Royce and Exelon Generation have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to pursue the potential for Exelon Generation to operate compact nuclear power stations both in the UK and internationally, including markets such as Canada where New Brunswick SMR questions are prompting public debate today.

Exelon Generation will be using their operational experience to assist Rolls Royce in the development and deployment of the UKSMR.

Rolls-Royce is leading a consortium that is designing a low-cost factory built nuclear power station, known as a small modular reactor (SMR), with UK mini-reactor approval anticipated as development progresses. Its standardised, factory-made components and advanced manufacturing processes push costs down, while the rapid assembly of the modules and components inside a weatherproof canopy on the power station site itself avoid costly schedule disruptions.

The consortium is working with its partners and UK Government to secure a commitment for a fleet of factory built nuclear power stations, each providing 440MW of electricity, to be operational within a decade, helping the UK meet its net zero obligations in line with the green industrial revolution policy set out by government. A fleet deployment in the UK will lead to the creation of new factories that will make the components and modules which will help the economy recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and pave the way for significant export opportunities as well.

The consortium members feature the best of nuclear engineering, construction and infrastructure expertise in Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Jacobs, Laing O'Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory, Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, Rolls-Royce and TWI. Exelon will add valuable operational experience to the team.

Tom Samson, interim Chief Executive Officer of the UKSMR consortium, said: 'Nuclear power is central to tackling climate change and economic recovery, but it must be affordable, reliable and investable and the way we manufacture and assemble our power station brings its cost down to be comparable with offshore wind.

'It's a compelling proposition that could draw new players into the UK's power generation landscape, improving choice for consumers and providing uninterrupted low carbon energy to homes and businesses.

'The opportunity to partner with Exelon is a very exciting prospect for our program, complementing our existing Consortium partnerships with one of the world's largest nuclear operator adds an important dimension to our growth ambitions, embodies the strength of the UK and USA alliance on nuclear matters and reflects wider international moves, such as a Canadian premiers' SMR initiative to accelerate technology development, and offers our future customers the ability to achieve the highest performance standards associated with Exelon's outstanding operational track record.'

The power stations will be built by the UKSMR consortium, before being handed over to be operated by power generation companies. Exelon Generation will work closely with the consortium during the pre-operation period. Exelon Nuclear operates 21 nuclear reactors in America, and U.S. regulators recently issued a final safety evaluation for a NuScale SMR that underscores momentum in the sector. The Exelon nuclear fleet is an integral part of the U.S. clean power mix; it produces more than 158 million megawatt-hours of clean electricity every year.

Bryan Hanson, EVP and COO of Exelon Generation said: 'We believe that SMRs are a crucial part of the world's clean energy mix, as projects like Darlington SMRs advance in Ontario. With our experience both in the US and internationally, Exelon is confident that we can help Rolls Royce ensure SMRs play a key role in the UK's energy future. We've had a very strong record of performance for 20 consecutive years, with a 2019 capacity factor of 95.7 percent. We will leverage this experience to achieve sustainably high capacity factors for the UKSMRs.'

Ralph Hunter, Managing Director of Exelon Nuclear Partners, who runs Exelon's international clean energy business, said: 'We have a strong track record of success to be the operator of choice for the UKSMR. We will help develop operational capability, training and human capacity development in the UK, as utilities such as Ontario Power Generation commit to SMRs abroad, ensuring localisation of skills and a strong culture of safety, performance and efficiency.'

By 2050 a full UK programme of a fleet of factory built nuclear power stations in the UK could create:

Up to 40,000 jobs GBP52BN of value to the UK economy GBP250BN of exports

The current phase of the programme has been jointly funded by all consortium members and UK Research and Innovation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Wind Turbine Cancer Claim debunked: Iowa Republican senators back wind energy as fact-checks and DOE research find no link between turbine noise and cancer, limited effects on property values, and manageable wildlife impacts.

Key Points

Claims that turbine noise causes cancer, dismissed by studies and officials as unsupported by evidence.

✅ Grassley and Ernst call the claim idiotic and ridiculous

✅ DOE studies find no cancer link; property impacts limited

✅ Wildlife impacts mitigated; climate change poses larger risks

President Donald Trump may not be a fan of wind turbines, as shown by his pledge to scrap offshore wind projects earlier, suggesting that the noise they produce may cause cancer, but Iowa's Republican senators are big fans of wind energy.

Sen. Chuck Grassley called Trump's cancer claim "idiotic." On Thursday, Sen. Joni Ernst called the statement "ridiculous."

"I would say it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous," Ernst said, according to WHO-TV.

She likened the claim that wind turbine noise causes cancer to the idea that church bells do the same.

"I have church bells that ring all the time across from my office here in D.C. and I know that noise doesn't give me cancer, otherwise I'd have 'church bell cancer,'" Ernst said, adding that she is "thrilled" to have wind energy generation in Iowa, which aligns with a quarter-million wind jobs forecast nationwide. "I don't know what the president is drawing from."

Trump has a history of degrading wind energy and wind turbines that dates back long before his Tuesday claim that turbines harm property values and cause cancer, and often overlooks Texas grid constraints that can force turbines offline at times.

Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse they are bad for people's health.

"Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse, they are bad for people's health," Trump tweeted back in 2012.

Repeated fact-checks have found no scientific evidence to support the claim that wind turbines and the noise they make can cause cancer. The White House has reportedly provided no evidence to support Trump's cancer claim when asked this week

"It just seems like every time you turn around there's another thing the president is saying -- wind power causes cancer, I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Grassley -- it's an 'idiotic' statement," Pelosi said in her weekly news conference on Thursday.

The president made his latest claim about wind turbines in a speech on Tuesday at a Republican spring dinner, as the industry continued recovering from the COVID-19 crisis that hit solar and wind energy.

"If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value -- and they say the noise causes cancer," Trump said Tuesday, swinging his arm in a circle and making a cranking sound to imitate the noise of windmill blades. "And of course it's like a graveyard for birds. If you love birds, you never want to walk under a windmill. It’s a sad, sad sight."

Wind turbines are not, in fact, proven to have widespread negative impacts on property values, according to the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information in the largest study done so far in the U.S., even as some warn that a solar ITC extension could be devastating for the wind market, and there is no peer-reviewed data to back up the claim that the noise causes cancer.

I am considered a world-class expert in tourism. When you say, 'Where is the expert and where is the evidence?' I say: I am the evidence.

It's true wildlife is affected by wind turbines -- particularly birds and bats, with research showing whooping cranes avoid turbines when selecting stopover sites. One study estimated between 140,000 and 328,000 birds are killed annually by collisions with turbines across the U.S. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated, however, that other human-related impacts also contribute to declines in population.

The wind industry works with biologists to find solutions to the impact of turbines on wildlife, and the Department of Energy awards grants each year to researchers addressing the issue, even as the sector faced pandemic investment risks in 2020. But, overall, scientists warn that climate change itself is a bigger threat to bird populations than wind turbines, according to the National Audobon Society.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "It just seems like every time you turn around, there's another thing. The president is saying wind power causes cancer. I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Grassley; It's an 'idiotic' statement"

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Toronto Hydro Scam Warning urges customers to spot phishing emails, fraudulent texts, fake bills, and door-to-door threats demanding bitcoin or prepaid cards, with disconnection threats; report scams to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

Key Points

Advisory on phishing, fake bills, and payment scams posing as Toronto Hydro, with steps to avoid fraud and report.

✅ Hang up suspicious calls; never pay via bitcoin or prepaid cards.

✅ Do not click links in emails or texts; compare bills and account numbers.

✅ Report fraud to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501.

Toronto Hydro has sent out a notice that criminals posing as Toronto Hydro are sending out fraudulent texts, letters and emails, similar to a recent BC Hydro scam reported in British Columbia.

The warning comes in a tweet, along with suggestions on how to protect yourself from fraud, especially as policy debates like an NDP public hydro plan can generate confusing messages.

According to Toronto Hydro, fraudsters are contacting people by phone, text, email, fake electricity bills, and even travelling door-to-door.

They threaten to disconnect the power unless an immediate payment is made, even though legitimate utilities must follow proper disconnection notices processes. The website states that in some cases, criminals request payment via pre-paid credit card or bitcoin.

It’s written on the website that Toronto Hydro does not accept these methods of payment, and they do not threaten to immediately disconnect power, a reminder that stories about power theft abroad are not a model for local billing.

If you suspect you are being targeted, you should immediately hang up any suspicious phone calls. Don’t click on any links in emails or texts asking you to accept electronic transfers, as scammers may impersonate well-known utilities during high-profile news such as Hydro One profit changes to appear credible.

Avoid sharing any personal information over the phone or in-person, and do not make any payments related to Smart Meter Deposits, as this fee does not exist and rate-setting is overseen by the Ontario Energy Board in Ontario.

And remember to always compare bills to previous ones, including the amount and account number, since major accounting decisions like a BC Hydro deferral report can fuel confusing narratives.

To report fraudulent activity, please contact:
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre at 1-888-495-8501; quote file number 844396

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Power Demand shows falling electricity load, lower wholesale prices, and resilient utilities in competitive markets, with regional differences tied to weather, renewable energy, stay-at-home orders, and hedging strategies.

Key Points

It outlines reduced load and prices, while regulatory design and hedging support utility stability across regions.

✅ Load down in NY, New England, PJM; weather drives South up.

✅ Wholesale prices fall 8-10% in key markets.

✅ Decoupling, contracts, hedging support utility earnings.

On March 27, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released a report on electricity demand and wholesale market prices impact from COVID-19 fallout. The model compares expected load based largely on weather with actual observed electricity demand changes.

So far, the hardest hit power grid is New York, with load down 7 and prices off by 10 percent. That’s expected, given New York City is the current epicenter of the US health crisis.

Next is New England, with 5 percent lower demand and 8 percent reduced wholesale prices for the week from March 19-25. BNEF says the numbers could go higher following advisories and orders issued March 24 for some 70 percent of the region’s population to stay at home.

Demand on the biggest grid in the US, the PJM (Pennsylvania/Jersey/Maryland), is 4 percent lower, with prices dropping 8 percent, as recent capacity auction payouts fell sharply. BNEF believes there will be more impact as stay at home orders are ramped up in several states.

California’s power demand for March 19-25 was 5 percent below what BNEF’s model expects without COVID-19 impact. That reflects a full week of stay-at-home orders from Governor Newsom issued March 19.

Health officials in Los Angeles and elsewhere expect a spike in COVID-19 cases in coming weeks. But BNEF’s model now actually projects rising electricity load for the state, due to what it calls "freakishly mild weather a year ago."

Rounding out the report, power demand is up for a band of southern states stretching from Florida to the desert Southwest, with weather more than offsetting public response to COVID-19 so far. BNEF says the Northwest’s grid "has not yet been highly impacted," while the Southeast is "generally in line" with pre-virus expectations.

Clearly, all of this data can change quickly and radically. Only California and New York are currently in full shutdown mode. Following them are New England (70 percent), the Midwest (65 percent), Texas (50 percent), PJM (50 percent) and the Northwest (50 percent).

In contrast, only small parts of Florida, the Southeast and Southwest are restricting movement. That could mean a big future increase for shut-ins, with heightened risks of electricity shut-offs that burden households and a corresponding impact on power demand.

Also, weather will play a major role on what happens to actual electricity demand, just as it always does. A very hot summer, for example, could offset virus-related shut-ins, just as it apparently is now in states like Texas. And it should be pointed out that regions vary widely by exposure to recession-sensitive sources of demand, such as heavy industry.

Most important for investors, however, is the built in protection US utility earnings enjoy from declining power demand, even amid broader energy crisis pressures facing the sector. For one thing, US power grids in California, ERCOT (Texas), MISO (Midwest), New England, New York and PJM have wholesale power markets, where producers compete for sales and the lowest bidder sets the price.

In those states, most regulated utilities don’t produce power at all. In fact, companies’ revenue is decoupled entirely from demand in California, as well as much of New England. In the roughly three-dozen states where utilities still operate as integrated monopolies, demand does affect revenue, and in many regions flat electricity demand already persists. But the cost of electricity is passed through directly to customers, whether produced or purchased.

A number of US electric companies have invested in renewable energy facilities as part of broader electrification trends nationwide. These sell their output under long-term contracts primarily with other utilities and government entities.

This isn’t a risk free business: For the past year, generators selling electricity to bankrupt PG&E Corp (PCG) have had their cash trapped at the power plant level as surety for lenders. But even PG&E has honored its contracts. And with states continuing aggressive mandates for renewable energy adoption, growth doesn’t appear at risk to COVID-19 fallout either.

The wholesale price of power from natural gas, coal and many nuclear plants was already sliding before COVID-19, due to renewables adoption and low natural gas prices, even as coal and nuclear disruptions raise reliability concerns. But here too, big producers like Exelon Corp (EXC) and Vistra Energy (VST) have employed aggressive price hedging near term, with regulated utilities and retail businesses protecting long-term health, respectively.

Bottom line: It’s early days for the COVID-19 crisis and much can still change. But so far at least, the US power industry is absorbing the blow of reduced demand, just as it’s done in previous crises.

That means future selloffs in the ongoing bear market are buying opportunities for best in class electric utilities, not a reason to sell. For top candidates, see the Conrad’s Utility Investor Portfolios and Dream Buy List in the March issue. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News