U.S. not seen on board for 2050 emissions cut

Canada Clean Electricity Standard targets a net-zero grid by 2035, using carbon pricing, CO2 caps, and carbon capture while expanding renewables and interprovincial trade to decarbonize power in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.

Key Points

A federal plan to reach a net-zero grid by 2035 using CO2 caps, carbon pricing, carbon capture, renewables, and trade.

✅ CO2 caps and rising carbon prices through 2050

✅ Carbon capture required on gas plants in high-emitting provinces

✅ Renewables build-out and interprovincial trade to balance supply

A new tool has been proposed in the federal election campaign as a way of eradicating the carbon emissions from Canada’s patchwork electricity system. 

As the country’s need for power grows through the decarbonization of transportation, industry and space heating, the Liberal Party climate plan is proposing a clean energy standard to help Canada achieve a 100% net-zero-electricity system by 2035, aligning with Canada’s net-zero by 2050 target overall. 

The proposal echoes a report released August 19 by the David Suzuki Foundation and a group of environmental NGOs that also calls for a clean electricity standard, capping power-sector emissions, and tighter carbon-pricing regulations. The report, written by Simon Fraser University climate economist Mark Jaccard and data analyst Brad Griffin, asserts that these policies would effectively decarbonize Canada’s electricity system by 2035.

“Fuel switching from dirty fossil fuels to clean electricity is an essential part of any serious pathway to transition to a net-zero energy system by 2050,” writes Tom Green, climate policy advisor to the Suzuki Foundation, in a foreword to the report. The pathway to a net-zero grid is even more important as Canada switches from fossil fuels to electric vehicles, space heating and industrial processes, even as the Canadian Gas Association warns of high transition costs.

Under Jaccard and Griffin’s proposal, a clean electricity standard would be established to regulate CO2 emissions specifically from power plants across Canada. In addition, the plan includes an increase in the carbon price imposed on electricity system releases, combined with tighter regulation to ensure that 100% of the carbon price set by the federal government is charged to electricity producers. The authors propose that the current scheduled carbon price of $170 per tonne of CO2 in 2030 should rise to at least $300 per tonne by 2050.

In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the 2030 standard would mean that all fossil-fuel-powered electricity plants would require carbon capture in order to comply with the standard. The provinces would be given until 2035 to drop to zero grams CO2 per kilowatt hour, matching the 2030 standard for low-carbon provinces (Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island). 

Alberta and Saskatchewan targeted 
Canada has a relatively clean electricity system, as shown by nationwide progress in electricity, with about 80% of the country’s power generated from low- or zero-emission sources. So the biggest impacts of the proposal will be felt in the higher-carbon provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta has a plan to switch from coal-based electric power to natural gas generation by 2023. But Saskatchewan is still working on its plan. Under the Jaccard-Griffin proposal, these provinces would need to install carbon capture on their gas-fired plants by 2030 and carbon-negative technology (biomass with carbon capture, for instance) by 2035. Saskatchewan has been operating carbon capture and storage technology at its Boundary Dam power station since 2014, but large-scale rollout at power plants has not yet been achieved in Canada. 

With its heavy reliance on nuclear and hydro generation, Ontario’s electricity supply is already low carbon. Natural gas now accounts for about 7% of the province’s grid, but the clean electricity standard could pose a big challenge for the province as it ramps up natural-gas-generated power to replace electricity from its aging Pickering station, scheduled to go out of service in 2025, even as a fully renewable grid by 2030 remains a debated goal. Pickering currently supplies about 14% of Ontario’s power. 

Ontario doesn’t have large geological basins for underground CO2 storage, as Alberta and Saskatchewan do, so the report says Ontario will have to build up its solar and wind generation significantly as part of Canada’s renewable energy race, or find a solution to capture CO2 from its gas plants. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance has kicked off a campaign to encourage the Ontario government to phase out gas-fired generation by purchasing power from Quebec or installing new solar or wind power.

As the report points out, the federal government has Supreme Court–sanctioned authority to impose carbon regulations, such as a clean electricity standard, and carbon pricing on the provinces, with significant policy implications for electricity grids nationwide.

The federal government can also mandate a national approach to CO2 reduction regardless of fuel source, encouraging higher-carbon provinces to work with their lower-carbon neighbours. The Atlantic provinces would be encouraged to buy power from hydro-heavy Newfoundland, for example, while Ontario would be encouraged to buy power from Quebec, Saskatchewan from Manitoba, and Alberta from British Columbia.

The Canadian Electricity Association, the umbrella organization for Canada’s power sector, did not respond to a request for comment on the Jaccard-Griffin report or the Liberal net-zero grid proposal.

Just how much more clean power will Canada need? 
The proposal has also kicked off a debate, and an IEA report underscores rising demand, about exactly how much additional electricity Canada will need in coming decades.

In his 2015 report, Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in Canada, energy and climate analyst Chris Bataille estimated that to achieve Canada’s climate net-zero target by 2050 the country will need to double its electricity use by that year.

Jaccard and Griffin agree with this estimate, saying that Canada will need more than 1,200 terawatt hours of electricity per year in 2050, up from about 640 terawatt hours currently.

But energy and climate consultant Ralph Torrie (also director of research at Corporate Knights) disputes this analysis.

He says large-scale programs to make the economy more energy efficient could substantially reduce electricity demand. A major program to install heat pumps and replace inefficient electric heating in homes and businesses could save 50 terawatt hours of consumption on its own, according to a recent report from Torrie and colleague Brendan Haley. 

Put in context, 50 terawatt hours would require generation from 7,500 large wind turbines. Applied to electric vehicle charging, 50 terawatt hours could power 10 million electric vehicles.

While Torrie doesn’t dispute the need to bring the power system to net-zero, he also doesn’t believe the “arm-waving argument that the demand for electricity is necessarily going to double because of the electrification associated with decarbonization.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Germany renewable energy milestone 2019 saw wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass outproduce coal and nuclear, as low gas prices and high CO2 costs under the EU ETS reshaped the electricity mix, per Fraunhofer ISE.

Key Points

It marks H1 2019 when renewables supplied 47.3% of Germany's electricity, surpassing coal and nuclear.

✅ Driven by high CO2 prices and cheap natural gas

✅ Wind and solar output rose; coal generation declined sharply

✅ Flexible gas plants outcompeted inflexible coal units

In Lippendorf, Saxony, the energy supplier EnBW is temporarily taking part of a coal-fired power plant offline. Not because someone ordered it — it simply wasn't paying off. Gas prices are low, CO2 prices are high, and with many hours of sunshine and wind, renewable methods are producing a great deal of electricity as part of Germany's energy transition now reshaping operations. And in the first half of the year there was plenty of sun and wind.

The result was a six-month period in which renewable energy sources, a trend echoed by the EU wind and solar record across the bloc, produced more electricity than coal and nuclear power plants together. For the first time 47.3% of the electricity consumers used came from renewable sources, while 43.4% came from coal-fired and nuclear power plants.

In addition to solar and wind power, renewable sources also include hydropower and biomass. Gas supplied 9.3%, reflecting how renewables are crowding out gas across European power markets, while the remaining 0.4% came from other sources, such as oil, according to figures published by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in July.

Fabian Hein from the think tank Agora Energiewende stresses that the situation is only a snapshot in time, with grid expansion woes still shaping outcomes. For example, the first half of 2019 was particularly windy and wind power production rose by around 20% compared to the first half of 2018.

Electricity production from solar panels rose by 6%, natural gas by 10%, while the share of nuclear power in German electricity consumption has remained virtually unchanged despite a nuclear option debate in climate policy.

Coal, on the other hand, declined. Black coal energy production fell by 30% compared to the first half of 2018, lignite fell by 20%. Some coal-fired power plants were even taken off the grid, even as coal still provides about a third of Germany's electricity. It is difficult to say whether this was an effect of the current market situation or whether this is simply part of long-term planning, says Hein.

Activists storm German mine in anti-coal protest

It is clear, however, that an increased CO2 price has made the ongoing generation of electricity from coal more expensive. Gas-fired power plants also emit CO2, but less than coal-fired power plants. They are also more efficient and that's why gas-fired power plants are not so strongly affected by the CO2 price

The price is determined at a European level and covers power plants and energy intensive industries in Europe. Other areas, such as heating or transport are not covered by the CO2 price scheme. Since a reform of CO2 emissions trading in 2017, the price has risen sharply. Whereas in September 2016 it was just over €5 ($5.6), by the end of June 2019 it had climbed to over €26.

Ups and downs

Gas as a raw material is generally more expensive than coal. But coal-fired power plants are more expensive to build. This is why operators want to run them continuously. In times of high demand, and therefore high prices, gas-fired power plants are generally started up, as seen when European power demand hit records during recent heatwaves, since it is worth it at these times.

Gas-fired power plants can be flexibly ramped up and down. Coal-fired power plants take 11 hours or longer to get going. That's why they can't be switched on quickly for short periods when prices are high, like gas-fired power plants. In the first half of the year, however, coal-fired power plants were also ramped up and down more often because it was not always worthwhile to let the power plant run around the clock.

Because gas prices were particularly low in the first half of 2019, some gas-fired power plants were more profitable than coal-fired plants. On June 29, 2019, the gas price at the Dutch trading point TTF was around €10 per megawatt hour. A year earlier, it had been almost €20. This is partly due to the relatively mild winter, as there is still a lot of gas in reserve, confirmed a spokesman for the Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industries (BDEW). There are also several new export terminals for liquefied natural gas. Additionally, weaker growth and trade wars are slowing demand for gas. A lot of gas comes to Europe, where prices are still comparatively high, reported the Handelsblatt newspaper.

The increase in wind and solar power and the decline in nuclear power have also reduced CO2 emissions. In the first half of 2019, electricity generation emitted around 15% less CO2 than in the same period last year, reported BDEW. However, the association demands that the further expansion of renewable energies should not be hampered. The target of 65% renewable energy can only be achieved if the further expansion of renewable energy sources is accelerated.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Wylfa Nuclear Project Cancellation reflects Hitachi's withdrawal, pulling £16bn from North Wales, risking jobs, reshaping UK nuclear power plans as renewables grow and Chinese involvement rises amid shifting energy market policies.

Key Points

An indefinite halt to Hitachi's Wylfa Newydd nuclear plant, removing about £16bn investment and jobs from North Wales.

✅ Hitachi withdraws funding amid changing energy market costs

✅ Puts 400 local roles and up to 10,000 construction jobs at risk

✅ UK shifts toward renewables as nuclear project support stalls

Chris Ruane said Japanese firm Hitachi’s announcement this morning about the Wylfa project would take £16 billion of investment out of the region.

He said it was the latest in a list of energy projects which had been scrapped as he responded to a statement from business secretary Greg Clark.

Mr Ruane, the Labour member for the Vale of Clywd, said: “In his statement he said the Government are relying now more on renewables, can I put the North Wales picture to him; 1,500 wind turbines were planned off the coast of North Wales. They were removed, those plans were cancelled by the private sector.

“The tidal lagoons for Wales were key to the development of the Welsh economy – the Government itself pulled the support for the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. That had a knock-on effect for the huge lagoon planned off the coast of North Wales.

“And now today we hear of the cancellation of a £16 billion investment in the North Wales economy. This will devastate the North Wales economy. The people of North Wales need to know that the Prime Minister is batting for them and batting for the UK.”

Mr Clark blamed the changing landscape of the energy market for today’s announcement, and said Wales has been a “substantial and proud leader” in renewable energy during the UK’s green industrial revolution over recent years.

But another Labour MP from North Wales, Albert Owen, of Ynys Mon, said the Wylfa plant’s cancellation in his constituency is putting 400 jobs at risk, as well as the “potential of 8-10,000 construction jobs”, as well as hundreds of operational jobs and 33 apprenticeships.

He asked Mr Clark: “Can I say straightly can we work together to keep this project alive, to ensure that we create the momentum so it can be ready for a future developer or this developer with the right mechanism?”

The minister replied that he and his officials would “work together in a completely open-book way on the options” to try and salvage the project.

But in the Lords, Labour former security minister Lord West of Spithead said the UK’s nuclear industry was in crisis, noting that Europe is losing nuclear power as well.

“In the 1950s our nation led the world in nuclear power generation and decisions by successive governments, of all hues, have got us in the position today where we cannot even construct a large civil nuclear reaction,” he told peers at question time.

Lord West asked: “Are we content that now the only player seems to be Chinese and that by 2035… we are happy for the Chinese to control one third of the energy supply of our nation?”

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy minister Lord Henley said the Government had hoped for a better announcement from Hitachi but that was not the case.

He said costs in the nuclear sector were rising, amid setbacks at Hinkley Point C, while costs for many renewables were coming down and this was one of the reasons for the problem.

Tory former energy secretary Lord Howell of Guildford said the Chinese were in “pole position” for the rebuilding and replacement “of our nuclear fleet” and this would have a major impact on UK energy policy and plans to meet net zero targets in the 2030s.

Plaid Cymru’s Lord Wigley warned that putting the Wylfa Newydd on indefinite hold would cause economic planning blight in north-west Wales and urged the Government to raise the level of support allocated to the region.

Lord Henley acknowledged the announcement was not welcome but added: “We remain committed to nuclear power. We will look to see what we can do. We still have a great deal of expertise in this country and we can work on that.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Western Washington Bomb Cyclone unleashed gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, causing massive power outages from Seattle to Tacoma; storm surge, downed trees, and blocked roads hindered emergency response and infrastructure repairs.

Key Points

A rapidly deepening storm with severe winds, rain, flooding, and major power outages across Western Washington.

✅ Rapid barometric pressure drop intensified the system

✅ Gale-force winds downed trees and power lines

✅ Coastal flooding and storm surge disrupted transport

A powerful "bomb cyclone" recently hit Western Washington, causing widespread destruction across the region. The intense storm left more than half a million residents without power, similar to B.C. bomb cyclone outages seen to the north, with outages affecting communities from Seattle to Olympia. This weather phenomenon, marked by a rapid drop in atmospheric pressure, unleashed severe wind gusts, heavy rain, and flooding, causing significant disruption to daily life.

The bomb cyclone, which is a rapidly intensifying storm, typically features a sharp drop in barometric pressure over a short period of time. This creates extreme weather conditions, including gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, as seen during California storm impacts earlier in the season. In Western Washington, the storm struck just as the region was beginning to prepare for the winter season, catching many off guard with its strength and unpredictability.

The storm's impact was immediately felt as high winds downed trees, power lines, and other infrastructure. By the time the worst of the storm had passed, utility companies had reported widespread power outages, with more than 500,000 customers losing electricity. The outages were particularly severe in areas like Seattle, Tacoma, and the surrounding communities. Crews worked tirelessly in difficult conditions to restore power, but many residents faced extended outages, underscoring US grid climate vulnerabilities that complicate recovery efforts, with some lasting for days due to the scope of the damage.

The power outages were accompanied by heavy rainfall, leading to localized flooding. Roads were inundated, making it difficult for first responders and repair crews to reach affected areas. Emergency services were stretched thin as they dealt with downed trees, blocked roads, and flooded neighborhoods. In some areas, floodwaters reached homes, forcing people to evacuate. In addition, several schools were closed, and public transportation services were temporarily halted, leaving commuters stranded and businesses unable to operate.

As the storm moved inland, its effects continued to be felt. Western Washington’s coastal regions were hammered by high waves and storm surges, further exacerbating the damage. The combination of wind and rain also led to hazardous driving conditions, prompting authorities to advise people to stay off the roads unless absolutely necessary.

While power companies worked around the clock to restore electricity, informed by grid resilience strategies that could help utilities prepare for future events, challenges persisted. Fallen trees and debris blocked access to repair sites, and the sheer number of outages made it difficult for crews to restore power quickly. Some customers were left in the dark for days, forced to rely on generators, candles, and other makeshift solutions. The storm's intensity left a trail of destruction, requiring significant resources to address the damages and rebuild critical infrastructure.

In addition to the immediate impacts on power and transportation, the bomb cyclone raised important concerns about climate change and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Experts note that storms like these are becoming more common, with rapid intensification leading to more severe consequences and compounding pressures such as extreme-heat electricity costs for households. As the planet warms, scientists predict that such weather systems will continue to grow in strength, posing greater challenges to cities and regions that are not always prepared for such extreme events.

In the aftermath of the storm, local governments and utility companies faced the daunting task of not only restoring services but also assessing the broader impact of the storm on communities. Many areas, especially those hit hardest by flooding and power outages, will require substantial recovery efforts. The devastation of the bomb cyclone highlighted the vulnerability of infrastructure in the face of rapidly changing weather patterns and water availability, as seen in BC Hydro drought adaptations nearby, and reinforced the need for greater resilience in the face of future storms.

The storm's impact on the Pacific Northwest is a reminder of the power of nature and the importance of preparedness. As Western Washington recovers, there is a renewed focus on strengthening infrastructure, including expanded renewable electricity to diversify supply, improving emergency response systems, and ensuring that communities are better equipped to handle the challenges posed by increasingly severe weather events. For now, residents remain hopeful that the worst is behind them and are working together to rebuild and prepare for whatever future storms may bring.

The bomb cyclone has left an indelible mark on Western Washington, but it also serves as a call to action for better preparedness, more robust infrastructure, and a greater focus on combating climate change to mitigate the impact of such extreme weather in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California Income-Based Electricity Rates propose a fixed monthly fee set by income as utilities and the CPUC weigh progressive pricing, aiming to cut low-income bills while PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E retain usage-based charges.

Key Points

CPUC plan adds income-tiered fixed fees to lower low-income bills while keeping per-kWh usage charges.

✅ Adds fixed monthly fees by income to complement per-kWh charges

✅ Cuts bills for low-income households; higher earners pay more

✅ Utilities say revenue neutral; conservation signals preserved

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising as electricity prices soar across the state, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level. 

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income, moving toward income-based flat-fee utility bills over time. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy, and some have introduced a plan to overturn the charges in the Legislature.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies. 

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, as regulators face calls for action from consumers and advocates. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.  

Who wants to change the fee structure?
Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing across the state. 

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income. 

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing. 

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement. 

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive. 

The proposed changes “will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UAE Nuclear Power Plant launches the Barakah facility, delivering clean electricity to the Middle East under IAEA safeguards amid Gulf tensions, proliferation risks, and debates over renewables, natural gas, grid resilience, and energy security.

Key Points

The UAE Nuclear Power Plant, Barakah, is a civilian facility expected to supply 25% of electricity under IAEA oversight.

✅ Barakah reactors target 25% of national electricity.

✅ Operates under IAEA oversight, no enrichment per US 123 deal.

✅ Raises regional security, proliferation, and environmental concerns.

The United Arab Emirates became the first Arab country to open a nuclear power plant on Saturday, following a crucial step in Abu Dhabi earlier in the project, raising concerns about the long-term consequences of introducing more nuclear programs to the Middle East.

Two other countries in the region — Israel and Iran — already have nuclear capabilities. Israel has an unacknowledged nuclear weapons arsenal and Iran has a controversial uranium enrichment program that it insists is solely for peaceful purposes.

The U.A.E., a tiny nation that has become a regional heavyweight and international business center, said it built the plant to decrease its reliance on the oil that has powered and enriched the country and its Gulf neighbors for decades. It said that once its four units were all running, the South Korean-designed plant would provide a quarter of the country’s electricity, with Unit 1 reaching 100% power as a milestone toward commercial operations.

Seeking to quiet fears that it was trying to build muscle to use against its regional rivals, it has insisted that it intends to use its nuclear program only for energy purposes.

But with Iran in a standoff with Western powers over its nuclear program, Israel in the neighborhood and tensions high among Gulf countries, some analysts view the new plant — and any that may follow — as a security and environmental headache. Other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq, are also starting or planning nuclear energy programs.

The Middle East is already riven with enmities that pit Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. against Iran, Qatar and Iran’s regional proxies. One of those proxies, the Yemen-based Houthi rebel group, claimed an attack on the Barakah plant when it was under construction in 2017.

And Iran is widely believed to be behind a series of attacks on Saudi oil facilities and oil tankers passing through the Gulf over the last year.

“The UAE’s investment in these four nuclear reactors risks further destabilizing the volatile Gulf region, damaging the environment and raising the possibility of nuclear proliferation,” Paul Dorfman, a researcher at University College London’s Energy Institute, wrote in an op-ed in March.

Noting that the U.A.E. had other energy options, including “some of the best solar energy resources in the world,” he added that “the nature of Emirate interest in nuclear may lie hidden in plain sight — nuclear weapon proliferation.”
But the U.A.E. has said it considered natural gas and renewable energy sources before dismissing them in favor of nuclear energy because they would not produce enough for its needs.

Offering evidence that its intentions are peaceful, it points to its collaborations with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has reviewed the Barakah project, and the United States, with which it signed a nuclear energy cooperation agreement in 2009 that allows it to receive nuclear materials and technical assistance from the United States while barring it from uranium enrichment and other possible bomb-development activities.

That has not persuaded Qatar, which last year lodged a complaint with the international nuclear watchdog group over the Barakah plant, calling it “a serious threat to the stability of the region and its environment.”

The U.A.E.’s oil exports account for about a quarter of its total gross domestic product. Despite its gusher of oil, it has imported increasing amounts of natural gas in recent years in part to power its energy-intensive desalination plants.

“We proudly witness the start of Barakah nuclear power plant operations, in alignment with the highest international safety standards,” Mohammed bin Zayed, the U.A.E.’s de facto ruler, tweeted on Saturday.

The new nuclear facility, which is in the Gharbiya region on the coast, close to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is the first of several prospective Middle East nuclear plants, even as Europe reduces nuclear capacity elsewhere. Egypt plans to build a power plant with four nuclear reactors.

Saudi Arabia is also building a civilian nuclear reactor while pursuing a nuclear cooperation deal with the United States, and globally, China's nuclear program remains on a steady development track, though the Trump administration has said it would sign such an agreement only if it includes safeguards against weapons development.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News