CAA Quebec Shines at the Quebec Electric Vehicle Show

Nuclear Power Construction Milestones spotlight EPR builds, Hualong One steam generators, APR-1400 grid integration, and VVER startups, with hot functional testing, hydrostatic checks, and commissioning advancing toward fuel loading and commercial operation.

Key Points

Key reactor project steps, from testing and grid readiness to startup, marking progress toward safe commercial operation.

✅ EPR units advance through cold and hot functional testing

✅ Hualong One installs 365-ton steam generators at Fuqing 5

✅ APR-1400 and VVER projects progress toward grid connection

The world’s nuclear power industry has been busy in the new year, with several construction projects, including U.S. reactor builds, reaching key milestones as 2018 began.

EPR Units Making Progress

Four EPR nuclear units are under construction in three countries: Olkiluoto 3 in Finland began construction in August 2005, Flamanville 3 in France began construction in December 2007, and Taishan 1 and 2 in China began construction in November 2009. Each of the new units is behind schedule and over budget, but recent progress may signal an end to some of the construction difficulties.

EDF reported that cold functional tests were completed at Flamanville 3 on January 6. The main purpose of the testing was to confirm the integrity of primary systems, and verify that components important to reactor safety were properly installed and ready to operate. More than 500 welds were inspected while pressure was held greater than 240 bar (3,480 psi) during the hydrostatic testing, which was conducted under the supervision of the French Nuclear Safety Authority.

With cold testing successfully completed, EDF can now begin preparing for hot functional tests, which verify equipment performance under normal operating temperatures and pressures. Hot testing is expected to begin in July, with fuel loading and reactor startup possible by year end. The company also reported that the total cost for the unit is projected to be €10.5 billion (in 2015 Euros, excluding interim interest).

Olkiluoto 3 began hot functional testing in December. Teollisuuden Voima Oyj—owner and operator of the site—expects the unit to produce its first power by the end of this year, with commercial operation now slated to begin in May 2019.

Although work on Taishan 1 began years after Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3, it is the furthest along of the EPR units. Reports surfaced on January 2 that China General Nuclear (CGN) had completed hot functional testing on Taishan 1, and that the company expects the unit to be the first EPR to startup. CGN said Taishan 1 would begin commercial operation later this year, with Taishan 2 following in 2019.

Hualong One Steam Generators Installed

Another Chinese project reached a notable milestone on January 8. China National Nuclear Corp. announced the third of three steam generators had been installed at the Hualong One demonstration project, which is being constructed as Unit 5 at the Fuqing nuclear power plant.

The Hualong One pressurized water reactor unit, also known as the HPR 1000, is a domestically developed design, part of China’s nuclear program, based on a French predecessor. It has a 1,090 MW capacity. The steam generators reportedly weigh 365 metric tons and stand more than 21 meters tall. The first steam generator was installed at Fuqing 5 on November 10, with the second placed on Christmas Eve.

Barakah Switchyard Energized

In the United Arab Emirates, more progress has been made on the four South Korean–designed APR-1400 units under construction at the Barakah nuclear power plant. On January 4, Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp. (ENEC) announced that the switchyard for Units 3 and 4 had been energized and connected to the power grid, a crucial step in Abu Dhabi toward completion. Unit 2’s main power transformer, excitation transformer, and auxiliary power transformer were also energized in preparation for hot functional testing on that unit.

“These milestones are a result of our extensive collaboration with our Prime Contractor and Joint Venture partner, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO),” ENEC CEO Mohamed Al Hammadi said in a press release. “Working together and benefitting from the experience gained when conducting the same work on Unit 1, the teams continue to make significant progress while continuing to implement the highest international standards of safety, security and quality.”

In 2017, ENEC and KEPCO achieved several construction milestones including installation and concrete pouring for the reactor containment building liner dome section on Unit 3, and installation of the reactor containment liner plate rings, reactor vessel, steam generators, and condenser on Unit 4.

Construction began on the four units (Figure 1) in July 2012, May 2013, September 2014, and September 2015, respectively. Unit 1 is currently undergoing commissioning and testing activities while awaiting regulatory review and receipt of the unit’s operating license from the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation, before achieving 100% power in a later phase. According to ENEC, Unit 2 is 90% complete, Unit 3 is 79% complete, and Unit 4 is 60% complete.

VVER Units Power Up

On December 29, Russia’s latest reactor to commence operation—Rostov 4 near the city of Volgodonsk—reached criticality, as other projects like Leningrad II-1 advance across the fleet, and was operated at its minimum controlled reactor power (MCRP). Criticality is a term used in the nuclear industry to indicate that each fission event in the reactor is releasing a sufficient number of neutrons to sustain an ongoing series of reactions, which means the neutron population is constant and the chain reaction is stable.

“The transfer to the MCRP allows [specialists] to carry out all necessary physical experiments in the critical condition of [the] reactor unit (RU) to prove its design criteria,” Aleksey Deriy, vice president of Russian projects for ASE Engineering Co., said in a press release. “Upon the results of the experiments the specialists will decide on the RU powerup.”

Rostov 4 is a VVER-1000 reactor with a capacity of 1,000 MW. The site is home to three other VVER units: Unit 1 began commercial operation in 2001, Unit 2 in 2010, and Unit 3 in 2015.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Ice Storm Response to Fraser Valley power outages highlights freezing rain impacts, round the clock crews, infrastructure challenges, and climate change risks across the Lower Mainland during winter weather and restoration efforts.

Key Points

A plan for freezing rain events that prioritizes safety, rapid repairs, and clear communication to restore power.

✅ Prioritizes hazards, critical loads, and public safety first

✅ Deploys crews, contractors, and equipment across affected areas

✅ Addresses climate risks without costly undergrounding expansion

Call it the straw that broke the llama's back.

The loss of power during recent Fraser Valley ice storms meant Jennifer Quick, who lives on a Mission farm, had no running water, couldn't cook with appliances and still had to tend to a daughter sick with stomach flu.

As if that wasn't enough, she had to endure the sight of her shivering llamas.

"I brought them outside at one point and when I brought them back in, they had icicles on their fur," she said, adding the animals stayed in the warmth of their barn from then on.

For three and a half days, Quick and her family were among more than 160,000 BC Hydro customers in the Fraser Valley left in the dark after ice storms whipped through the region.

BC Hydro expects to get all customers back online Tuesday, five days after the storm hit.

And with another storm possibly on the horizon, the utility is defending its response to the treacherous weather, noting that windstorm power outages can be widespread.

BC Hydro spokesperson Mora Scott said the utility has a "best in class" storm response system, similar to PG&E winter storm prep in the U.S.

"In a typical storm situation we normally have 95 per cent of our customers back up within 24 hours. Ice storms are different and obviously this was an atypical storm for us," she said.

Scott said that in this case, the utility got power back on for 75 per cent of customers within 24 hours. It took the work of 450 employees called in from around B.C., working around the clock, a mobilization echoed by Sudbury Hydro crews after a storm, she said.

The work was complicated by trees falling near crews, icy roads, low visibility and even substations so frozen over the ice had to be melted off with blowtorches.

She said that in the long term, BC Hydro has no plans to make changes to how it responds to extreme ice storms or how infrastructure is built.

"Seeing ice build up in the Lower Mainland like this is a rare event," she said. "So to build for extremes like that probably doesn't make a lot of sense."

Climate change will bring storms

But CBC meteorologist Johanna Wagstaffe said that might not always be the case as climate change continues to impact our planet.

"The less severe winter events, like light snowfall, will happen less often," she said. "But the disruptive events — like last week's storm — will actually happen more often and we are already seeing this shift happen."

Marc Eliesen, a former CEO of BC Hydro in the early 1990s, said the utility needs to keep that in mind when planning for worst-case scenarios.

"This [storm] is a condition characteristic of the weather in the east, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, where freezing rain outages in Quebec are more common, which is organized to deal with freezing rain and heavy snow on the lines," he said. "This is a new phenomenon for British Columbia."

Eliesen questions whether BC Hydro has adequate equipment and crew training to deal with ice storms if they become more frequent, pointing to Hydro One storm restoration in Ontario as a comparison.

'Always something we can learn'

Scott disagrees with some of Eliesen's points.

She said some of the crews called in to deal with the recent storm come from northern B.C. and the Interior and have plenty of experience with snow.

"There's always something we can learn in every major storm situation," she said.

The idea of putting power lines underground was raised by some CBC readers and listeners, but Scott said running underground lines is five to 10 times the cost of running lines on pole, so it is done sparingly. Besides, equipment like substations and transmission lines need to be kept aboveground.

Meanwhile, Wagstaffe said that beginning Thursday, wintry weather could return to the Lower Mainland.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

US Electricity Demand Stagnation reflects decoupling from GDP as TVA's IRP revises outlook, with energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and cheap natural gas undercutting coal, reshaping utility business models and accelerating grid modernization.

Key Points

US electricity demand stagnation is flat load growth driven by efficiency, DG, and decoupling from GDP.

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

✅ Efficiency and rooftop solar reduce load growth and capacity needs.

✅ Utilities must pivot to services, DER orchestration, and grid software.

The US electricity sector is in a period of unprecedented change and turmoil, with emerging utility trends reshaping strategies across the industry today. Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes.

In all that bedlam, it’s easy to lose sight of an equally important (if less sexy) trend: Demand for electricity is stagnant.

Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, with COVID-19 electricity demand underscoring recent variability and long-run stagnation, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way. The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became “decoupled”:

This historic shift has wreaked havoc in the utility industry in ways large and small, visible and obscure. Some of that havoc is high-profile and headline-making, as in the recent requests from utilities (and attempts by the Trump administration) to bail out large coal and nuclear plants amid coal and nuclear industry disruptions affecting power markets and reliability.

Some of it, however, is unfolding in more obscure quarters. A great example recently popped up in Tennessee, where one utility is finding its 20-year forecasts rendered archaic almost as soon as they are released.

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

Every five years, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) — the federally owned regional planning agency that, among other things, supplies electricity to Tennessee and parts of surrounding states — develops an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) meant to assess what it requires to meet customer needs for the next 20 years.

The last IRP, completed in 2015, anticipated that there would be no need for major new investment in baseload (coal, nuclear, and hydro) power plants; it foresaw that energy efficiency and distributed (customer-owned) energy generation would hold down demand.

Even so, TVA underestimated. Just three years later, the Times Free Press reports, “TVA now expects to sell 13 percent less power in 2027 than it did two decades earlier — the first sustained reversal in the growth of electricity usage in the 85-year history of TVA.”

TVA will sell less electricity in 10 years than it did 10 years ago. That is bonkers.

This startling shift in prospects has prompted the company to accelerate its schedule. It will now develop its next IRP a year early, in 2019.

Think for a moment about why a big utility like TVA (serving 9 million customers in seven states, with more than $11 billion in revenue) sets out to plan 20 years ahead. It is investing in extremely large and capital-intensive infrastructure like power plants and transmission lines, which cost billions of dollars and last for decades. These are not decisions to make lightly; the utility wants to be sure that they will still be needed, and will still pay off, for many years to come.

Now think for a moment about what it means for the electricity sector to be changing so fast that TVA’s projections are out of date three years after its last IRP, so much so that it needs to plunge back into the multimillion-dollar, year-long process of developing a new plan.

TVA wanted a plan for 20 years; the plan lasted three.

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

TVA, as a government-owned, fully regulated utility, has only the goals of “low cost, informed risk, environmental responsibility, reliability, diversity of power and flexibility to meet changing market conditions,” as its planning manager told the Times Free Press. (Yes, that’s already a lot of goals!)

But investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which administer electricity for well over half of Americans, face another imperative: to make money for investors. They can’t make money selling electricity; monopoly regulations forbid it, raising questions about utility revenue models as marginal energy costs fall. Instead, they make money by earning a rate of return on investments in electrical power plants and infrastructure.

The problem is, with demand stagnant, there’s not much need for new hardware. And a drop in investment means a drop in profit. Unable to continue the steady growth that their investors have always counted on, IOUs are treading water, watching as revenues dry up

Utilities have been frantically adjusting to this new normal. The generation utilities that sell into wholesale electricity markets (also under pressure from falling power prices; thanks to natural gas and renewables, wholesale power prices are down 70 percent from 2007) have reacted by cutting costs and merging. The regulated utilities that administer local distribution grids have responded by increasing investments in those grids, including efforts to improve electricity reliability and resilience at lower cost.

But these are temporary, limited responses, not enough to stay in business in the face of long-term decline in demand. Ultimately, deeper reforms will be necessary.

As I have explained at length, the US utility sector was built around the presumption of perpetual growth. Utilities were envisioned as entities that would build the electricity infrastructure to safely and affordably meet ever-rising demand, which was seen as a fixed, external factor, outside utility control.

But demand is no longer rising. What the US needs now are utilities that can manage and accelerate that decline in demand, increasing efficiency as they shift to cleaner generation. The new electricity paradigm is to match flexible, diverse, low-carbon supply with (increasingly controllable) demand, through sophisticated real-time sensing and software.

That’s simply a different model than current utilities are designed for. To adapt, the utility business model must change. Utilities need newly defined responsibilities and new ways to make money, through services rather than new hardware. That kind of reform will require regulators, politicians, and risky experiments. Very few states — New York, California, Massachusetts, a few others — have consciously set off down that path.

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

Even if natural gas and renewables weren’t roiling the sector, the end of demand growth would eventually force utility reform.

To be clear: For both economic and environmental reasons, it is good that US power demand has decoupled from GDP growth. As long as we’re getting the energy services we need, we want overall demand to decline. It saves money, reduces pollution, and avoids the need for expensive infrastructure.

But the way we’ve set up utilities, they must fight that trend. Every time they are forced to invest in energy efficiency or make some allowance for distributed generation (and they must always be forced), demand for their product declines, and with it their justification to make new investments.

Only when the utility model fundamentally changes — when utilities begin to see themselves primarily as architects and managers of high-efficiency, low-emissions, multidirectional electricity systems rather than just investors in infrastructure growth — can utilities turn in earnest to the kind planning they need to be doing.

In a climate-aligned world, utilities would view the decoupling of power demand from GDP growth as cause for celebration, a sign of success. They would throw themselves into accelerating the trend.

Instead, utilities find themselves constantly surprised, caught flat-footed again and again by a trend they desperately want to believe is temporary. Unless we can collectively reorient utilities to pursue rather than fear current trends in electricity, they are headed for a grim reckoning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Bill Redesign Spending sparks debate over Ontario Energy Board regulation, rate applications, privatization, and digital billing upgrades, as surveys cite confusing invoices under the Fair Hydro Plan for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.

Key Points

$15M project to simplify Hydro One bills, upgrade systems, and improve digital billing for commercial customers.

✅ $9M spent; $6M proposed for C&I and large-account changes.

✅ OEB to rule amid rate application and privatization scrutiny.

✅ Survey: 40% of customers struggled to understand bills.

Ontario's largest and recently privatized electricity utility has spent $9-million to redesign bills and is proposing to spend an additional $6-million on the project.

Hydro One has come under fire for spending since the Liberal government sold more than half of the company, notably for its CEO's $4.5-million pay.

Now, the NDP is raising concerns with the $15-million bill redesign expense contained in a rate application from the formerly public utility.

"I don't think the problem we face is a bill that people can't understand, I think the problem is rates that are too high," said energy critic Peter Tabuns. "Fifteen million dollars seems awfully expensive to me."

But Hydro One says a 2016 survey of its customers indicated about 40 per cent had trouble understanding their bills.

Ferio Pugliese, the company's executive vice-president of customer care and corporate affairs, said the redesign was aimed at giving customers a simpler bill.

"The new format is a format that when tested and put in front of our customers has been designed to give customers the four or five salient items they want to see on their bill," he said.

About $9-million has already gone into redesigning bills, mostly for residential customers, Pugliese said. Cosmetic changes to bills account for about 25 per cent of the cost, with the rest of the money going toward updating information systems and improving digital billing platforms, he said.

The additional $6-million Hydro One is looking to spend would go toward bill changes mostly for its commercial, industrial and large distribution account customers.

Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault noted in a statement that the Ontario Energy Board has yet to decide on the expense, but he suggested he sees the bill redesign as necessary alongside legislation to lower electricity rates introduced by the province.

"With Ontarians wanting clearer bills that are easier to understand, Hydro One's bill redesign project is a necessary improvement that will help customers," he wrote.

"Reductions from the Fair Hydro Plan (the government's 25 per cent cut to bills last year) are important information for both households and businesses, and it's our job to provide clear, helpful answers whenever possible."

The OEB recently ordered Hydro One to lower a rate increase it had been seeking for this year to 0.2 per cent down from 4.8 per cent.

The regulator also rejected a Hydro One proposal to give shareholders all of the tax savings generated by the IPO in 2015 when the Liberal government first began partially privatizing the utility. The OEB instead mandated shareholders receive 62 per cent of the savings while ratepayers receive the remaining 38 per cent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Georgia Electricity Imports October 2017 surged as hydropower output fell and thermal power plants underperformed; ESCO balanced demand via low-cost imports, mainly from Azerbaijan, amid rising tariffs, kWh consumption growth, and a widening generation-consumption gap.

Key Points

They mark a record import surge due to costly local generation, lower hydropower, ESCO balancing costs, and rising demand.

✅ Imports rose 832% YoY to 157 mln kWh, mainly from Azerbaijan

✅ TPP output fell despite capacity; only low-tariff plants ran

✅ Balancing price 13.8 tetri/kWh signaled costly domestic PPAs

In October 2017, Georgian power plants generated 828 mln. KWh of electricity, marginally up (+0.79%) compared to September. Following the traditional seasonal pattern and amid European concerns over dispatchable power shortages affecting markets, the share of electricity produced by renewable sources declined to 71% of total generation (87% in September), while thermal power generation’s share increased, accounting for 29% of total generation (compared to 13% in September). When we compare last October’s total generation with the total generation of October 2016, however, we observe an 8.7% decrease in total generation (in October 2016, total generation was 907 mln. kWh). The overall decline in generation with respect to the previous year is due to a simultaneous decline in both thermal power and hydro power generation. 

Consumption of electricity on the local market in the same period was 949 mln. kWh (+7% compared to October 2016, and +3% with respect to September 2017), and reflected global trends such as India's electricity growth in recent years. The gap between consumption and generation increased to 121 mln. kWh (15% of the amount generated in October), up from 100 mln. kWh in September. Even more importantly, the situation was radically different with respect to the prior year, when generation exceeded consumption.

The import figure for October was by far the highest from the last 12 years (since ESCO was established), occurring as Ukraine electricity exports resumed regionally, highlighting wider cross-border dynamics. In October 2017, Georgia imported 157 mln. kWh of electricity (for 5.2 ¢/kWh – 13 tetri/kWh). This constituted an 832% increase compared to October 2016, and is about 50% larger than the second largest import figure (104.2 mln. kWh in October 2014). Most of the October 2017 imports (99.6%) came from Azerbaijan, with the remaining 0.04% coming from Russia.

The main question that comes to mind when observing these statistics is: why did Georgia import so much? One might argue that this is just the result of a bad year for hydropower generation and increased demand. This argument, however, is not fully convincing. While it is true that hydropower generation declined and demand increased, the country’s excess demand could have been easily satisfied by its existing thermal power plants, even as imported coal volumes rose in regional markets. Instead of increasing, however, the electricity coming from thermal power plants declined as well. Therefore, that cannot be the reason, and another must be found. The first that comes to mind is that importing electricity may have been cheaper than buying it from local TPPs, or from other generators selling electricity to ESCO under power purchase agreements (PPAs). We can test the first part of this hypothesis by comparing the average price of imported electricity to the price ceiling on the tariff that TPPs can charge for the electricity they sell. Looking at the trade statistics from Geostat, the average price for imported electricity in October 2017 remained stable with respect to the same month of the previous year, at 5.2 ¢ (13 tetri) per kWh. Only two thermal power plants (Gardabani and Mtkvari) had a price ceiling below 13 tetri per kWh. Observing the electricity balance of Georgia, we see that indeed more than 98% of the electricity generated by TPPs in October 2017 was generated by those two power plants.

What about other potential sources of electricity amid Central Asia's power shortages at the time? To answer this question, we can use the information derived from the weighted average price of balancing electricity. Why balancing electricity? Because it allows us to reconstruct the costs the market operator (ESCO) faced during the month of October to make sure demand and supply were balanced, and it allows us to gain an insight about the price of electricity sold through PPAs.

ESCO reports that the weighted average price of balancing electricity in October 2017 was 13.8 tetri/kWh, (25% higher than in October 2016, when it was below the average weighted cost of imports – 11 vs. 13 – and when the quantity of imported electricity was substantially smaller). Knowing that in October 2017, 61% of balancing electricity came from imports, while 39% came from hydropower and wind power plants selling electricity to ESCO under their PPAs, we can deduce that in this case, internal generation was (on average) also substantially more expensive than imports. Therefore, the high cost of internally generated electricity, rather than the technical impossibility of generating enough electricity to satisfy electricity demand, indeed appears to be one the main reasons why electricity imports spiked in October 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Crouching Yeti APT targets energy infrastructure with watering-hole attacks, compromising servers to steal credentials and stage intrusions; Kaspersky Lab links the Energetic Bear group to ICS threats across Russia, US, Europe, and Turkey.

Key Points

Crouching Yeti APT, aka Energetic Bear, is a threat group that targets energy firms using watering-hole attacks.

✅ Targets energy infrastructure via watering-hole compromises

✅ Uses open-source tools and backdoored sshd for persistence

✅ Scans global servers to stage intrusions and steal credentials

A hacker collective known for attacking industrial companies around the world have had some of their infrastructure identified by Russian security specialists.

Kaspersky Lab said that it has discovered a number of servers compromised by the group, belonging to different organisations based in Russia, the US, and Turkey, as well as European countries.

The Russian-speaking hackers, known as Crouching Yeti or Energetic Bear, mostly focus on energy facilities, as seen in reports of infiltration of the U.S. power grid targeting critical infrastructure, for the main purpose of stealing valuable data from victim systems.

Hacked servers

Crouching Yeti is described as an advanced persistent threat (APT) group that Kaspersky Lab has been tracking since 2010.

#google#

Kaspersky Lab said that the servers it has compromised are not just limited to industrial companies. The servers were hit in 2016 and 2017 with different intentions. Some were compromised to gain access to other resources or to be used as intermediaries to conduct attacks on other resources.

Others, including those hosting Russian websites, were used as watering holes.

It is a common tactic for Crouching Yeti to utilise watering hole attacks where the attackers inject websites with a link redirecting visitors to a malicious server.

“In the process of analysing infected servers, researchers identified numerous websites and servers used by organisations in Russia, US, Europe, Asia and Latin America that the attackers had scanned with various tools, possibly to find a server that could be used to establish a foothold for hosting the attackers’ tools and to subsequently develop an attack,” said the security specialists in a blog posting.

“The range of websites and servers that captured the attention of the intruders is extensive,” the firm said. “Kaspersky Lab researchers found that the attackers had scanned numerous websites of different types, including online stores and services, public organisations, NGOs, manufacturing, etc.

Kaspersky Lab said that the hackers used publicly available malicious tools, designed for analysing servers, and for seeking out and collecting information. The researchers also found a modified sshd file with a preinstalled backdoor. This was used to replace the original file and could be authorised with a ‘master password’.

“Crouching Yeti is a notorious Russian-speaking group that has been active for many years and is still successfully targeting industrial organisations through watering hole attacks, among other techniques,” explained Vladimir Dashchenko, head of vulnerability research group at Kaspersky Lab ICS CERT.

Russian government?

“Our findings show that the group compromised servers not only for establishing watering holes, but also for further scanning, and they actively used open-sourced tools that made it much harder to identify them afterwards,” he said.

“The group’s activities, such as initial data collection, the theft of authentication data, and the scanning of resources, are used to launch further attacks,” said Dashchenko. “The diversity of infected servers and scanned resources suggests the group may operate in the interests of the third parties.”

This may well tie into a similar conclusion from a rival security vendor.

In 2014 CrowdStrike claimed that the ‘Energetic Bear’ group was also tracked in Symantec's Dragonfly research and had been hacking foreign companies on behalf of the Russian state.

The security vendor had said the group had been carrying out attacks on foreign companies since 2012, with reports of breaches at U.S. power plants that underscored the campaign, and there was evidence that these operations were sanctioned by the Russian government.

Last month the United States for the first time publicly accused Russia in a condemnation of Russian grid hacking of attacks against the American power grid.

Symantec meanwhile warned last year of a resurgence in cyber attacks on European and US energy companies, including reports of access to U.S. utility control rooms that could result in widespread power outages.

And last July the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) acknowledged it was investigating a broad wave of attacks on companies in the British energy and manufacturing sectors.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News