The CIB and private sector partners to invest $1.7 billion in Lake Erie Connector

Kenya Nuclear Power Plant Project advances with environmental impact assessment, selecting Tana River County under a build-operate-transfer model to boost grid capacity, support manufacturing growth, and assess reactor technology for reliable baseload energy.

Key Points

A $5B BOT nuclear facility in Tana River to expand Kenya's grid, aiming to start operations in about seven years.

✅ Environmental impact study published for public review by NEMA

✅ Preferred site: Tana River County near coast; grid integration

✅ BOT concession; reactor tech under evaluation for baseload

Kenya’s nuclear agency submitted impact studies for a $5 billion power plant, and said it’s on course to build and start operating the facility in about seven years, as markets like China's nuclear program continue steady expansion.

The government plans to expand its nuclear-power capacity fourfold by 2035, mirroring policy steps in India to revive the sector, the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency said in a report on the National Environment Management Authority’s website. The document is set for public scrutiny before the environmental watchdog can approve it, aligning with global green industrial strategies that weigh nuclear in decarbonization, and pave the way for the project to continue.

President Uhuru Kenyatta wants to ramp up installed generation capacity from 2,712 megawatts as of April to boost manufacturing in East Africa’s largest economy, noting milestones such as Barakah Unit 1 reaching 100% power as indicators of nuclear readiness. Kenya expects peak demand to top 22,000 megawatts by 2031, and other jurisdictions, such as Ontario's exploration of new nuclear, are weighing similar large-scale options, partly due to industrial expansion, a component in Kenyatta’s Big Four Agenda. The other three are improving farming, health care and housing.

The nuclear agency is assessing technologies “to identify the ideal reactor for the country,” it said in the report, including next-gen nuclear designs now being evaluated.

A site in Tana River County, near the Kenyan coast was preferred after studies across three regions, according to the report. The plant will be developed with a concessionaire under a build, operate and transfer model, with innovators such as mini-reactor concepts informing vendor options.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

EU Renewable Power Overtakes Fossil Fuels, reflecting a greener energy mix as wind, solar, and hydro expand, cutting CO2 emissions and curbing coal while negative prices rise amid pandemic-driven demand drops.

Key Points

A milestone as renewables surpass fossil power in the EU, driven by wind, solar, hydro growth and pandemic demand.

✅ 40% renewables vs 34% fossil in H1 across 27 EU states

✅ Wind, solar, hydro rose; coal generation fell 32% year-on-year

✅ Lower demand, carbon prices, grid priority boosted clean output

Renewable power for the first time contributed a bigger share in the European generation mix than fossil fuels, as described in Europe's green surge as the fallout from the pandemic cut energy demand.

About 40 percent of the electricity in the first half in the 27 EU countries came from renewable sources, exceeding the global renewables share reported elsewhere, compared with 34 percent from plants burning fossil fuels, according to environmental group Ember in London. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector fell 23 percent.

The rise is significant and encouraging for law makers as Europe prepares to spend billions of euros to recover from the virus, with wind power investments underscoring the momentum, and set the bloc on track to neutralize its carbon footprint by the middle of the century.

“This marks a symbolic moment ​in the transition of Europe’s electricity sector,” said Dave Jones, an electricity analyst at Ember. “For countries like Poland and Czech Republic grappling with how to get off coal, there is now a clear way out.”

While power demand slumped, output from wind and solar farms increased, reflecting global wind and solar gains, because more plants came online in breezy and sunny weather. At the same time, wet conditions boosted hydro power in Iberia and the Nordic markets.

Those conditions helped renewables become a rare bright spot throughout the economic tumult this year. In many areas, renewable sources of electricity have priority to the grid, meaning they could keep growing even as demand shrank and other power plants were turned off.

Electricity demand in the EU fell 7 percent overall. Fossil-fuel power generation plunged 18 percent in the first half compared with a year earlier. Renewable generation grew by 11 percent, according to Ember.

Coal was by far the biggest loser in 2020. It’s one of the most-polluting sources of power and its share is slumping in Europe as the price of carbon increases, with renewables surpassing coal in the US illustrating the broader shift, and governments move to cut emissions. Power from coal fell 32 percent across the EU.

Despite the economics, the decision to shut off coal for good will come down to political agreements between producers and governments, while reducing reliance on Russian energy reshapes policy debates.

One consequence of the jump in renewables is that negative prices have increased, as solar is reshaping prices in Northern Europe in similar ways. On particularly windy or sunny days when there isn’t much demand, the grid can be flooded with power. That’s leading wind farms to be shut off and customers to be paid to consume electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

PJM Capacity Auction Price Drop signals PJM Interconnection capacity market shifts, with $50/MW-day clearing, higher renewables and nuclear participation, declining coal, natural gas pressure, and zone impacts in ComEd and EMAAC, amid 21% reserve margins.

Key Points

A decline to $50 per MW-day in PJM capacity prices, shifting resource mix, zonal rates, and reserve margins.

✅ Clearing price fell to $50/MW-day from $140 in 2018

✅ Renewables and nuclear up; coal units down across PJM

✅ Zonal prices: ComEd $68.96, EMAAC $97.86; 21% reserves

Power-plant owners serving the biggest U.S. grid will be paid 64% less next year for being on standby to keep the lights on from New Jersey to Illinois.

Suppliers to PJM Interconnection LLC’s grid, which serves more than 65 million people, will get $50 a megawatt-day to provide capacity for the the year starting June 2022, according to the results of an auction released Wednesday. That’s down sharply from $140 in the previous auction, held in 2018. Analysts had expected the price would fall to about $85.

“Renewables, nuclear and new natural gas generators saw the greatest increases in cleared capacity, while coal units saw the largest decrease,” PJM said in a statement.

The PJM auction is the single most important event for power generators across the eastern U.S., including Calpine Corp., NRG Energy Inc. and Exelon Corp., because it dictates a big chunk of their future revenue. It also plays a pivotal role in shaping the region’s electricity mix, determining how much the region is willing to stick with coal and natural gas plants or replace them with wind and solar even as the aging grid complicates progress nationwide.

The results showed that the capacity price for the Chicago-area zone, known as ComEd, was $68.96 compared with $195.55 in the last auction. The price for the Pennsylvania and New Jersey zone, known as EMAAC, fell to $97.86 percent, from $165.73. All told, 144,477 megawatts cleared, representing a reserve margin of 21%.

Exelon shares fell 0.4% after the results were released. Vistra fell 1.5%. NRG was unchanged.

Blackouts triggered by extreme weather in Texas and California over the last year have reignited a debate over whether other regions should institute capacity systems similar to the one used by PJM, and whether to adopt measures like emergency fuel stock programs in New England as well. The market, which pays generators to be on standby in case extra power is needed, has long been a source of controversy. While it makes the grid more reliable, the system drives up costs for consumers. In the area around Chicago, for instance, these charges total more than $1.7 billion per year, accounting for 20% of customer bills, according to the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition.

In the 2018 auction, PJM contracted supplies that were about 22% in excess of the peak demand projection at the time. This year, the grid is projected to start summer with a reserve margin of about 26%, as COVID-19 demand shifts persist, according to the market monitor -- far higher than the 16% most engineers say is needed to prevent major outages.

“This certainly doesn’t seem fair to ratepayers,” said Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Initiative.

Fossil-Fuel Advantage
Heading into the auction, analysts expected coal and gas plants to have the advantage. Nuclear reactors and renewables, they said, were poised to struggle amid coal and nuclear disruptions nationwide.

That’s because this is the first PJM auction run under a major pricing change imposed by federal regulators during the Trump administration. The new structure creates a price floor for some bidders, effectively hobbling nuclear and renewables that receive state subsidies while making it easier for fossil fuels to compete.

Those rules triggered contentious wrangling between power providers, PJM and federal regulators, delaying the auction for two years. The new system, however, may be short lived. The Biden administration is moving to overhaul the rules in time for the next auction in December.

Also See: Biden Climate Goals to Take Backseat in Biggest U.S. Power Grid

Dominion Energy Inc., one of the biggest U.S. utility owners, pulled out of the market over the rules. The Virginia-based company, which has a goal to have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, said the new PJM format will “make renewables more expensive” than delivering clean energy through alternative markets.

Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland have also threatened to leave the capacity market unless the new price floor is eliminated, and Connecticut is leading a market overhaul in New England as well. PJM has already launched a process to do it.

PJM is already one of the most fossil-fuel intensive grids, with 60% of its electricity coming from coal and gas. Power plants that bid into the auction rely on it for the bulk of their revenue. That means plants that win contracts have an incentive to continue operating for as long as they can, even amid a supply-chain crisis this summer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SCE Wildfire Lawsuits allege utility equipment and power lines sparked deadly Los Angeles blazes; investigations, inverse condemnation, and stricter utility regulations focus on liability, vegetation management, and wildfire safety amid Santa Ana winds.

Key Points

Residents sue SCE, alleging power lines ignited LA wildfires; seeking compensation under inverse condemnation.

✅ Videos cited show sparking lines near alleged ignition points.

✅ SCE denies wrongdoing; probes and inspections ongoing.

✅ Inverse condemnation may apply regardless of negligence.

In the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, residents have initiated legal action, similar to other mega-fire lawsuits underway in California, against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging that the utility's equipment was responsible for sparking one of the most destructive fires. The fires have resulted in significant loss of life and property, prompting investigations into the causes and accountability of the involved parties.

The Fires and Their Impact

In early January 2025, Los Angeles experienced severe wildfires that ravaged neighborhoods, leading to the loss of at least 29 lives and the destruction of approximately 155 square kilometers of land. Areas such as Pacific Palisades and Altadena were among the hardest hit. The fires were exacerbated by arid conditions and strong Santa Ana winds, which contributed to their rapid spread and intensity.

Allegations Against Southern California Edison

Residents have filed lawsuits against SCE, asserting that the utility's equipment, particularly power lines, ignited the fires. Some plaintiffs have presented videos they claim show sparking power lines in the vicinity of the fire's origin. These legal actions seek to hold SCE accountable for the damages incurred, including property loss, personal injury, and emotional distress.

SCE's Response and Legal Context

Southern California Edison has denied any wrongdoing, stating that it has not detected any anomalies in its equipment that could have led to the fires. The utility has pledged to cooperate fully with investigations to determine the causes of the fires. California's legal framework, particularly the doctrine of "inverse condemnation," allows property owners to seek compensation from utilities for damages caused by public services, even without proof of negligence. This legal principle has been central in previous cases involving utility companies and wildfire damages, and similar allegations have arisen in other jurisdictions, such as an alleged faulty transformer case, highlighting shared risks.

Historical Context and Precedents

This situation is not unprecedented. In 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) faced similar allegations when its equipment was implicated in the Camp Fire, the deadliest wildfire in California's history. PG&E's equipment was found to have ignited the fire, and the company later pleaded guilty in the Camp Fire, leading to extensive litigation and financial repercussions for the company, while its bankruptcy plan won support from wildfire victims during restructuring. The case highlighted the significant risks utilities face regarding wildfire safety and the importance of maintaining infrastructure to prevent such disasters.

Implications for California's Utility Regulations

The current lawsuits against SCE underscore the ongoing challenges California faces in balancing utility operations with wildfire prevention, as regulators face calls for action amid rising electricity bills. The state has implemented stricter regulations and oversight, and lawmakers have moved to crack down on utility spending to mitigate wildfire risks associated with utility infrastructure. Utilities are now required to invest in enhanced safety measures, including equipment inspections, vegetation management, and the implementation of advanced technologies to detect and prevent potential fire hazards. These regulatory changes aim to reduce the incidence of utility-related wildfires and protect communities from future disasters.

The legal actions against Southern California Edison reflect the complex interplay between utility operations, public safety, and environmental stewardship. As investigations continue, the outcomes of these lawsuits may influence future policies and practices concerning utility infrastructure and wildfire prevention in California. The state remains committed to enhancing safety measures to protect its residents and natural resources from the devastating effects of wildfires.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News