GE profit surges 80 per cent

Uranium Critical Mineral Reclassification signals a US executive order directing USGS to restore critical status, boosting nuclear energy, domestic uranium mining, streamlined permitting, federal support, and energy security amid import reliance and supply chain risks.

Key Points

A policy relisting uranium as a critical mineral to unlock funding, speed permits, and strengthen U.S. nuclear security.

✅ Directs Interior to have USGS reconsider uranium classification

✅ Speeds permits for domestic uranium mining projects

✅ Targets import dependence and strengthens energy security

In a strategic move to bolster the United States' nuclear energy sector, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, directing the Secretary of the Interior to instruct the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to reconsider classifying uranium as a critical mineral. This directive aims to enhance federal support and streamline permitting processes for domestic uranium projects, thereby strengthening U.S. energy security objectives.

Reclassification of Uranium as a Critical Mineral

The USGS had previously removed uranium from its critical minerals list in 2022, categorizing it as a "fuel mineral" that did not qualify for such designation. The recent executive order seeks to reverse this decision, recognizing uranium's strategic importance in the context of the nation's energy infrastructure and geopolitical considerations.

Implications for Domestic Uranium Production

Reclassifying uranium as a critical mineral is expected to unlock federal funding and expedite the permitting process for uranium mining projects within the United States. This initiative is particularly pertinent given the significant decline in domestic uranium production over the past two decades. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic production has decreased by 96%, from 4.8 million pounds in 2014 to approximately 121,296 pounds in the third quarter of 2024.

Current Uranium Supply Dynamics

Despite the push for increased domestic production, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on uranium imports. In 2022, 27% of U.S. uranium purchases were sourced from Canada, with an additional 57% imported from countries including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Australia, and Russia; a recent ban on Russian uranium could further disrupt these supply patterns and heighten risks. This reliance on foreign sources has raised concerns about energy security, especially in light of recent geopolitical tensions.

Challenges and Considerations

While the executive order represents a significant step toward revitalizing the U.S. nuclear energy sector, several challenges persist, and energy dominance faces constraints that will shape implementation:

• Regulatory Hurdles: Accelerating the permitting process for uranium mining projects involves navigating complex environmental and regulatory frameworks, though recent permitting reforms for geothermal hint at potential pathways, which can be time-consuming and contentious.

• Market Dynamics: The uranium market is subject to global supply and demand fluctuations, and domestic producers may face competition from established international suppliers.

• Infrastructure Development: Expanding domestic uranium production necessitates substantial investment in mining infrastructure and workforce development, areas that have been underfunded in recent years.

Broader Implications for Nuclear Energy Policy

The executive order aligns with a broader strategy to revitalize the U.S. nuclear energy industry, where ongoing nuclear innovation is critical to delivering stable, low-emission power. The increasing demand for nuclear energy is driven by the global push for zero-emissions energy sources and the need to support power-intensive technologies, such as artificial intelligence servers.

Former President Trump's executive order to reclassify uranium as a critical mineral, aligning with his broader energy agenda and a prior pledge to end the 'war on coal', signifies a pivotal moment for the U.S. nuclear energy sector. By potentially unlocking federal support, including programs advanced by the Nuclear Innovation Act, and streamlining permitting processes, this initiative aims to reduce dependence on foreign uranium sources and enhance national energy security. However, realizing these objectives will require addressing regulatory challenges, market dynamics, and infrastructure needs to ensure the successful revitalization of the domestic uranium industry.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Distributed Energy Resources (DER) are surging as solar PV, battery storage, and demand response decarbonize power, cut costs, and boost grid resilience for utilities, ESCOs, and C&I customers through 2030.

Key Points

DER are small-scale, grid-connected assets like solar PV, storage, and demand response that deliver flexible power.

✅ Investments in DER to rise 75% by 2030; $846B in assets, $285B in storage.

✅ Residential solar PV: 49.3% of spend; C&I solar PV: 38.9% by 2030.

✅ Drivers: favorable policy, falling costs, high demand charges, decarbonization.

Frost & Sullivan's recent analysis, Growth Opportunities in Distributed Energy, Forecast to 2030, finds that the rate of annual investment in distributed energy resources (DER) will increase by 75% by 2030, with the market set for a decade of high growth. Favorable regulations, declining project and technology costs, and high electricity and demand charges are key factors driving investments in DER across the globe, with rising European demand boosting US solar equipment makers prospects in export markets. The COVID-19 pandemic will reduce investment levels in the short term, but the market will recover. Throughout the decade, $846 billion will be invested in DER, supported by a further $285 billion that will be invested in battery storage, with record solar and storage growth anticipated as installations and investments accelerate.

"The DER business model will play an increasingly pivotal role in the global power mix, as highlighted by BNEF's 2050 outlook and as part of a wider effort to decarbonize the sector," said Maria Benintende, Senior Energy Analyst at Frost & Sullivan. "Additionally, solar photovoltaic (PV) will dominate throughout the decade. Residential solar PV will account for 49.3% of total investment ($419 billion), though policy moves like a potential Solar ITC extension could pressure the US wind market, with commercial and industrial solar PV accounting for a further 38.9% ($330 billion)."

Benintende added: "In developing economies, DER offers a chance to bridge the electricity supply gap that still exists in a number of country markets. Further, in developed markets, DER is a key part of the transition to a cleaner and more resilient energy system, consistent with IRENA's renewables decarbonization findings across the energy sector."

DER offers significant revenue growth prospects for all key market participants, including:

• Technology original equipment manufacturers (OEMs): Offer flexible after-sales support, including digital solutions such as asset integrity and optimization services for their installed base.
• System integrators and installers: Target household customers and provide efficient and trustworthy solutions with flexible financial models.
• Energy service companies (ESCOs): ESCOs should focus on adding DER deployments, in line with US decarbonization pathways and policy goals, to expand and enhance their traditional role of providing energy savings and demand-side management services to customers.

Utility companies: Deployment of DER can create new revenue streams for utility companies, from real-time and flexibility markets, and rapid solar PV growth in China illustrates how momentum in renewables can shape utility strategies.
Growth Opportunities in Distributed Energy, Forecast to 2030 is the latest addition to Frost & Sullivan's Energy and Environment research and analyses available through the Frost & Sullivan Leadership Council, which helps organizations identify a continuous flow of growth opportunities to succeed in an unpredictable future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro Rate Freeze Rejection details the BCUC decision enabling a 3% rate increase, citing revenue requirements, debt, and capital costs, affecting electricity bills, with NDP government proposing lifeline rates and low-income relief.

Key Points

It is the BCUC ruling allowing a 3% BC Hydro rate hike, citing cost recovery, debt, and capital needs.

✅ BCUC rejects freeze; 3% increase proceeds April 1, 2018

✅ Rationale: cost recovery, debt, capital expenditures

✅ Relief: lifeline rate, $600 grants, winter payment plan

The B.C. Utilities Commission has rejected a request by the provincial government to freeze rates at BC Hydro for the coming year, meaning a pending rate increase of three percent will come into effect as higher BC Hydro rates on April 1, 2018.

BC Hydro had asked for the three per cent increase, aligning with a rate increase proposal that would add about $2 a month, but, last year, Energy Minister Michelle Mungall directed the Crown corporation to resubmit its request in order to meet an NDP election promise.

"After years of escalating electricity costs, British Columbians deserve a break on their bills," she said at the time.

However, the utilities commission found there was "insufficient regulatory justification to approve the zero per cent rate increase."

"Even these increases do not fully recover B.C. Hydro's forecast revenue requirement, which includes items such as operating costs, new capital expenditures and carrying costs on capital expenditures," the commission wrote in a news release.

Mungall said she was disappointed by the decision.

"We were always clear we were going to the BCUC. We need to respect the role the BCUC has here for the ratepayers and for the public. I'm very disappointed obviously with their decision."

Mungall blamed the previous government for leaving BC Hydro in a financial state where a rate freeze was ultimately not possible.

Last month, Moody's Investors Service calculated BC Hydro's total debt at $22 billion and said it was one of the province's two credit challenges going forward.

"There's quite a financial mess that is a B.C. Liberal legacy after 16 years of government. We have the responsibility as a new government to clean that up."

B.C. Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson said it was an example of the new government not living up to its campaign promises.

"British Columbians, particularly those on fixed incomes, believed the B.C. NDP when they promised a freeze on hydro bills. They planned accordingly and are now left in the lurch and face higher expenses. This is a government that stumbles into messes that cost all of us because they put rhetoric ahead of planning," he said.

Help on the way?

With the freeze being rejected, Mungall said the government would be going forward on other initiatives to help low-income ratepayers, as advocates' call for change after a fund surplus, including:

Legislating a "lifeline rate" program, allowing people with "demonstrated need" to apply for a lower rate for electricity.

Starting in May, providing an emergency grant of $600 for customers who have an outstanding BC Hydro bill.

Hydro's annual winter payment plan also allows people the chance to spread the payment of bills from December to February out over six months, and, with a two-year rate increase on the horizon, a new pilot program to help people paying their bills begins in July.

Mungall couldn't say whether the government would apply for rate freezes in the future.

"I don't have a crystal ball, and can't predict what might happen in two or three years from now, but we need to act swiftly now," she said.

"I appreciate the [BCUC's] rationale, I understand it, and we'll be moving forward with other alternatives for making life more affordable."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Nuclear Reactor Life Extension focuses on energy security, carbon-free electricity, and safety as ageing reactors face gas shortages, high power prices, and regulatory approvals across the UK and EU amid winter supply risks.

Key Points

EU Nuclear Reactor Life Extension is the policy to keep ageing reactors safely generating affordable, low-carbon power.

✅ Extends reactor operation via inspections and component upgrades

✅ Addresses gas shortages, price volatility, and winter supply risks

✅ Requires national regulator approval and cost-benefit analysis

Shaken by the loss of Russian natural gas since the invasion of Ukraine, European countries are questioning whether they can extend the lives of their ageing nuclear reactors to maintain the supply of affordable, carbon-free electricity needed for net-zero across the bloc — but national regulators, companies and governments disagree on how long the atomic plants can be safely kept running.

Europe avoided large-scale blackouts last winter despite losing its largest supplier of natural gas, and as Germany temporarily extended nuclear operations to bolster stability, but industry is still grappling with high electricity prices and concerns about supply.

Given warnings from the International Energy Agency that the coming winters will be particularly at risk from a global gas shortage, governments have turned their attention to another major energy source — even as some officials argue nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue in the near term — that would exacerbate the problem if it too is disrupted: Europe’s ageing fleet of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear accounts for nearly 10% of energy consumed in the European Union, with transport, industry, heating and cooling traditionally relying on coal, oil and natural gas.

Historically nuclear has provided about a quarter of EU electricity and 15% of British power, even as Germany shut down its last three nuclear plants recently, underscoring diverging national paths.

Taken together, the UK and EU have 109 nuclear reactors running, even as Europe is losing nuclear power in several markets, most of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s and were commissioned to last about 30 years.

That means 95 of those reactors — nearly 90% of the fleet — have passed or are nearing the end of their original lifespan, igniting debates over how long they can safely continue to be granted operating extensions, with some arguing it remains a needed nuclear option for climate goals despite age-related concerns.

Regulations differ across borders, with some countries such as Germany turning its back on nuclear despite an ongoing energy crisis, but life extension discussions are usually a once-a-decade affair involving physical inspections, cost/benefit estimates for replacing major worn-out parts, legislative amendments, and approval from the national nuclear safety authority.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News