Neo-Nazi, woman accused of plotting 'hate-fueled attacks' on power stations, federal complaint says

UK Coal-Free Electricity Record highlights rapid growth in renewables as National Grid phases out coal; wind, solar, and offshore projects surge, green tariffs expand, and energy comparison helps consumers switch to cheaper, cleaner deals.

Key Points

Britain's longest coal-free run, enabled by renewables, lower demand, and grid shifts for cheaper, greener tariffs.

✅ Record set after two months without coal-fired generation

✅ Renewables outpace fossil fuels; wind and solar dominate

✅ Green tariffs expand; prices at three-year lows

On Wednesday 10 June, Britain hit a significant landmark: the UK went for two full months without burning coal to generate power – that's the longest period since the 1880s, following earlier milestones such as a full week without coal power in the recent past.

According to the National Grid, Britain has now run its electricity network without burning coal since midnight on the 9 April. This coal-free period has beaten the country’s previous record of 18 days, six hours and 10 minutes, which was set in June 2019, even though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to analyses.

With such a shift in Britain’s drive for renewables and lower electricity demand following the coronavirus lockdown, as Britain recorded its cleanest electricity during lockdown to date, now may be the perfect time to do an online energy comparison and switch to a cheaper, greener deal.

Only a decade ago, around 40 per cent of Britain’s electricity came from coal generation, but since then the country has gradually shifted towards renewable energy, with the coal share at record lows in the system today. When Britain was forced into lockdown in response to the coronavirus pandemic, electricity demand dropped sharply, and the National Grid took the four remaining coal-fired plants off the network.

Over the past 10 years, Britain has invested heavily in renewable energy. Back in 2010, only 3 per cent of the country's electricity came from wind and solar, and many people remained sceptical. However, now, the UK has the biggest offshore wind industry in the world. Plus, last year, construction of the world’s single largest wind farm was completed off the coast of Yorkshire.

At the same time, Drax – Britain’s biggest power plant – has started to switch from burning coal to burning compressed wooden pellets instead, reflecting the UK's progress as it keeps breaking its coal-free energy record again across the grid. By this time next year, the plant hopes to have phased out coal entirely.

So far this year, renewables have generated more power than all fossil fuels put together, the BBC reports, and the energy dashboard shows the current mix in real time. Renewables have been responsible for 37 per cent of electricity supplied to the network, with wind and solar surpassing nuclear for the first time, while fossil fuels have accounted for 35 per cent. During the same period, nuclear accounted for 18 per cent and imports made up the remaining 10 per cent.

What does this mean for consumers?

As the country’s electricity supply moves more towards renewables, customers have more choice than ever before. Most of the ‘Big Six’ energy companies now have tariffs that offer 100 per cent green electricity. On top of this, specialist green energy suppliers such as Bulb, Octopus and Green Energy UK make it easier than ever to find a green energy tariff.

The good news is that our energy comparison research suggests that green energy doesn’t have to cost you more than a traditional fixed-price energy contract would. In fact, some of the cheapest energy suppliers are actually green companies.

At present, energy bills are at three-year lows, which means that now is the perfect time to switch supplier. As prices remain low and renewables begin to dominate the marketplace, more switchers will be drawn to green energy deals than ever before.

However, if you’re interested in choosing a green energy supplier, make sure that you look at the company's fuel mix. This way, you’ll be able to see whether they are guaranteeing the usage of green energy, or whether they’re just offsetting your usage. All suppliers must report how their energy is generated to Ofgem, so you’ll easily be able to compare providers.

You may find that you pay more for a supplier that generates its own energy from renewables, or pay less if the supplier simply matches your usage by buying green energy. You can decide which option is right for you after comparing the prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Power Grid Restoration accelerates across liberated Kharkiv, restoring electricity, heat, and water amid missile and drone strikes, demining operations, blackouts, and winterization efforts, showcasing resilience, emergency repairs, and critical infrastructure recovery.

Key Points

Ukraine's rapid push to repair war-damaged grids, restore heat and water, and stabilize key services before winter.

✅ Priority repairs restore electricity and water in liberated Kharkiv.

✅ Crews de-mine lines and work under shelling, drones, and missiles.

✅ Winterization adds generators, mobile stoves, and large firewood supplies.

On the freshly liberated battlefields of northeast Ukraine, a pile of smashed glass windows outside one Soviet-era block of apartments attests to the violence of six months of Russian occupation, and of Ukraine’s sweeping recent military advances.

Indoors, in cramped apartments, residents lived in the dark for weeks on end.

Now, with a hard winter looming, they marvel at the speed and urgency with which Ukrainian officials have restored another key ingredient to their survival: electric power, a critical effort to keep the lights on this winter across communities.

Among those things governments strive to provide are security, opportunity, and minimal comfort. With winter approaching, and Russia targeting Ukraine’s infrastructure, add to that list heat and light, even as Russia hammers power plants nationwide. It’s requiring a concerted effort.

“Thank God it works! Electricity is civilization – it is everything,” says Antonina Krasnokutska, a retired medical worker, looking affectionately at the lightbulb that came on the day before, and now burns again in her tiny spotless kitchen.

“Without electricity there is no TV, no news, no clothes washing, no charging the phone,” says Ms. Krasnokutska, her gray hair pulled back and a small crucifix around her neck.

“Before, it was like living in the Stone Age,” says her grown son, Serhii Krasnokutskyi, who is more than a head taller. “As soon as it got dark, everyone would go to sleep.”

He shows a picture on his phone from a few days earlier, of a tangle of phone and computer charging cables – including his – plugged in at a local shop with a generator.

“We are very grateful for the people who repaired this electricity, even with shelling continuing,” he says. “They have a very complicated job.”

Indeed, although a lack of power might have been a novel inconvenience during the warm summer season, it increasingly has become a matter of great urgency for Ukrainian citizens and officials.

Coping through Ukraine’s winter with dignity and any degree of security will require courage and perseverance, as the severity and suffering that the season can bring here are being weaponized by Russia, as it seeks to compensate for a string of battlefield losses.

In recent days, Russian attacks have specifically targeted Ukraine’s electrical and other civilian infrastructure – all with the apparent aim of making this winter as hard as possible for Ukrainians, even as Moscow employs other measures to spread the hardship across Europe, while Ukraine helps Spain amid blackouts through grid support.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday that Russian barrages across the country with missiles and Iran-supplied kamikaze drones had destroyed 30% of Ukraine’s power stations in the previous eight days, including strikes on western Ukraine that caused outages. Thousands of towns have been left without electricity.

Kharkiv’s challenges
Emblematic of the national challenge is the one facing officials in the northeast Kharkiv region, where Ukraine recaptured more than 3,000 square miles in a September counteroffensive. Ukrainian forces are still making gains on that front, as well as in the south toward Kherson, where Wednesday Russia started evacuating civilians from the first major city it occupied, after launching its three-pronged invasion last February.

Across the Kharkiv region, Ukrainians are stockpiling as much wood, fuel, and food as possible while they still can, and adopting new energy solutions as they prepare, from sources as diverse as the floorboards of destroyed schools and the pine forests in Izium, which are pockmarked with abandoned Russian trenches adjacent to a mass burial site.

“Of course, we have this race against time,” says Serhii Mahdysyuk, the Kharkiv regional director in charge of housing, services, fuel, and energy. “Unfortunately, we probably stand in front of the biggest challenge in Ukraine.”

That is not only because of the scale of liberated territory, he says, but also because the Kharkiv region shares a long border with Russia, as well as with the Russian-controlled areas of the eastern Donbas.

“It’s a great mixture of all threats, and we are sure that shelling and bombings will continue, but we are ready for this,” says Mr. Mahdysyuk. “We know our weak spots that Russia can destroy, but we are prepared for what to do in these situations.”

Ukraine’s battlefield gains have meant a surging need to pick up the pieces after Russian occupation, even as electricity reserves are holding if no new strikes occur, to ensure habitable conditions as more and more surviving residents require services, and as others return to scenes of devastation.

Restoring electricity is the top priority, amid shifting international assistance such as the end of U.S. grid support, because that often restarts running water, too, says Mr. Mahdysyuk. But before that, the area beneath broken power lines must be de-mined.

Indeed, members of an electricity team reconnecting cables on the outskirts of Balakliia – one of the first towns to see power restored, at the end of September – say they lost two fellow workers in the previous two weeks. One died after stepping on an anti-personnel mine, another when his vehicle hit an anti-tank device.

Ukrainian electricity workers restore power lines damaged during six months of Russian military occupation in Balakliia, Ukraine, Sept. 29, 2022. Ukrainians in liberated territory say the restoration of the electrical grid, and with it often the water supply, is a return to civilization.
“For now, our biggest problem is mines,” says the team leader, who gave the name Andrii. “It’s fine within the cities, but in the fields it’s a disaster because it’s very difficult to see them. There is a lot of [them] around here – it will take years and years to get rid of.”

Yet officials only have a few weeks to execute plans to provide for hundreds of thousands of residents in this region, in their various states of need and distress. Some 50 field kitchens capable of feeding 200 to 300 people each have been ordered. Another 1,000 mobile stoves are on their way.

And authorities will provide nearly 200,000 cubic yards of firewood for those who have no access to it, and may have no other means of keeping warm – or where shelling continues to disrupt repairs, says Mr. Mahdysyuk.

“The level of opportunity and resources we have is not the same as the level of destruction,” he says. People in districts and buildings too destroyed to have services restored soon, such as in Saltivka in Kharkiv city, may be moved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Green Party Mission Possible 2030 outlines a rapid transition to renewable energy, electric vehicles, carbon pricing, and grid modernization, phasing out oil and gas while creating green jobs, public transit upgrades, and building retrofits.

Key Points

A Canadian climate roadmap to decarbonize by 2030 via renewables, EVs, carbon pricing, and grid upgrades.

✅ Ban on new gas cars by 2030; accelerate EV adoption and charging.

✅ 100 percent renewable-powered grid with interprovincial links.

✅ Just transition: retraining, green jobs, and building retrofits.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has a vision for Canada in 2030. In 11 years, all new cars will be electric. A national ban will prohibit anyone from buying a gas-powered vehicle. No matter where you live, charging stations will make driving long distances easy and affordable. Alberta’s oil industry will be on the way out, replaced by jobs in sectors such as urban farming, renewable energy and retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency. The electric grid will be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy as Canada’s race to net-zero accelerates.

It’s all part of the Greens’ “Mission Possible” – a detailed plan released Monday with a level of ambition made clear by its very name. May insists it’s the only way to confront the climate crisis head-on before it’s too late.

“We have to set our targets on what needs to be done. You can’t negotiate with physics,” May told CTV’s Power Play on Monday.

But is that 2030 vision realistic?

CTVNews.ca spoke with experts in economics, political policy, renewable energy and climate science to explore how feasible May’s plan is, how much it would cost and what transitioning to an environmentally-centred economy would look like for everyday Canadians.

MOVING TO A GREEN ECONOMY

Recent polling from Nanos Research shows that the environment and climate change is the top issue among voters this election.

If the Greens win a majority on Oct. 21 – an outcome that May herself acknowledged isn’t likely – it would signal a major restructuring of the Canadian economy.

According to the party’s platform, jobs in the fuels sectors, such as oil and gas production in Alberta, would eventually disappear. The Greens say those job losses would be replaced by opportunities in a variety of fields including renewable energy, farming, public transportation, manufacturing, construction and information technology.

The party would also introduce a guaranteed livable income and greater support for technical and educational training to help workers transition to new jobs.

But Jean-Thomas Bernard, an economist who specializes in energy markets, said plenty of people in today’s energy sector, such as oil and gas workers, wouldn’t have the skills to make that transition.

“Quite a few of these jobs have low technical requirements. Driving a truck is driving a truck. So quite few of these people will not have the capacity to be recycled into well-paid jobs in the renewable sector,” he said.

“Maybe this would be for the young generation, but not people who are 40, 45, 50.”

Ryan Katz-Rosene is an associate professor at the University of Ottawa who researches environmental policy. He says May’s overall pitch is technically possible but would require a huge amount of enthusiasm on behalf of the public. 

“The plan in itself is not physically impossible. It is theoretically achievable. But it would require a major, major change in the urgency and the level of action, the level of investment, the level of popular urgency, the level of political commitment,” he said.

“But it’s not completely fantastical in it being theoretically impossible.”

PHASING OUT BITUMEN PRODUCTION

Katz-Rosene said that, under the Greens’ plan, Canadians would need to pay for a bold carbon pricing plan that helps shift the country away from fossil fuels and has significant implications for electricity grids, he said. It would also mean dramatically upscaling the capacity of Canada’s existing electrical grid to account for millions of new electric cars, reflecting the need for more electricity to hit net-zero as demand grows.

 “Given Canada’s slow attempt to climate action and pretty lacklustre results in these years, to be frank, this plan is very, very difficult to achieve. We’re talking 11 years from now. But things change, people change, and sometimes that change can occur very quickly. Just look at the type of climate mobilization we’re seen among young people in the last year, or the last five years.”

Bernard, the economist, is less optimistic. He cited international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 and the more recent Paris Climate Agreement and said that little has come of those plans.

A climate solution with teeth, he suggests, would need to be global – something that no federal government can completely control.

“I find a lot this talk to be overly optimistic. I don’t know why we keep having this talk that is overly optimistic,” he said, adding that he believes humankind is already beyond the point of being able to stop irreversible climate change. 

“I think we are moving toward a mess, but the effort to control that is still not there.”

As for transitioning away from Canada’s oil industry, Bernard said May’s plan simply wouldn’t work.

“Trying to block some oil production here and there means more oil will be produced elsewhere,” he said. “Canada could become a clean country, but worldwide it would not be much.”

Mike Hudema, a climate organizer with Greenpeace Canada, thinks the Green Party’s promises for 2030 are big – and that’s kind of the point.

“They are definitely ambitious, but ambition is exactly what these times call for.  Unfortunately our government has delayed acting on this problem for so long that we have a very short timeline which we have to turn the ship,” he said.

“So this is the type of ambition that the science is calling for. So yes, I believe that if we here in Canada were to put our minds to addressing this problem, then we have the ability to reach it in that 2030 timeframe.”

In a statement to CTVNews.ca, a Green Party spokesperson said the 2030 timeline is intended to meet the 45 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 as laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“If we miss the 2030 target, we risk triggering runaway global warming,” the spokesperson said.

GREENING THE GRID BY 2030

Greening Canada’s existing electric grid – a goal May has pegged to 2030 – is quite feasible, Katz-Rosene said, and cleaning up Canada’s electricity is critical to meeting climate pledges. Already, 82 per cent of the country’s electric grid is run off of renewable resources, which makes Canada a world leader in the field, he said.

Hudema agrees.

“It is feasible. Canada does have a grid already that has a lot of renewables in it. So yes we can definitely make it over the hump and complete the transition. But we do need investments in our electric grid infrastructure to ensure a certain capability. That comes with tremendous job growth. That’s the exciting part that people keep missing,” Hudema said.

But Bernard said switching the grid to 100 per cent renewables would be quite difficult. He suggested that the Greens’ 2030 vision would require Ontario and Quebec’s hydro production to help power the Prairies.

“To think we could boost (hydro production) much more in order to meet Saskatchewan and Alberta’s needs? Oh boy. To do this before 2030? I think that’s not reasonable, not feasible.”

In a statement to CTV News, the Greens said their strategy includes building new connections between eastern Manitoba and western Ontario to transmit clean energy. They would also upgrade existing connections between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and between B.C. and Alberta to boost reliability.

A number of “micro-grids” in local communities capable of storing clean energy would help reduce the dependency on nationwide distribution systems, the party said.

Even so, the Greens acknowledged that, by 2030, some towns and cities will still be using some fossil fuels, and that even by 2050 – the goal for achieving overall carbon neutrality – some “legacy users” of fossil fuels will remain.

However, according to party projections, the emissions of these “legacy users” would be at most 8 per cent of today’s levels and those emissions would be “more than completely offset” by re-forestation and new technologies, such as CO2 capture and storage.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE REVOLUTION

The Green Party’s platform promises to revolutionize the Canadian auto sector. By 2030, all new cars made in Canada would be electric and federal EV sales regulations would prohibit the sale of cars powered by gasoline.

Danny Harvey, a geography professor with the University of Toronto who specializes in renewable energy, said he thinks May’s plan for making a 100 per cent renewable-powered electric grid is feasible.

On cars, however, he thinks the emphasis on electric vehicles is “misplaced.”

“At this point in time we should be requiring automobiles to transition, by 2030, to making cars that can go three times further on a litre of gasoline than at present. This would require selling only advanced hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), which would run entirely on gasoline (like current HEVs),” he said.

“After that, and when the grid is fully ready, we could make the transition to fully electric or plugin hybrid electric vehicles, possibly using H2 for long-distance driving.”

At the moment, zero-emissions vehicles account for just over 2 per cent of annual vehicle sales in Canada. Katz-Rosene said that “isn’t a whole lot,” but the industry is on an exponential growth curve that doesn’t show any signs of slowing.

The trouble with May’s 2030 goal on electric vehicles, he said, has to do with Canadians’ taste in vehicles. In short: Canadians like trucks.

“The biggest obstacle I see is that I don’t even think it’s possible to get a light-duty truck, a Ford F150, in an electric model in Canada. And that’s the most popular type of vehicle,” he said.

However, if a zero emissions truck were on the market – something that automakers are already working on – then that could potentially shake things up, especially if the government introduces incentives for electric vehicles and higher taxes on gasoline, he said.

WHAT ABOUT THE COST?

CTVNews.ca reached out to the Green Party to ask how it would pay to revamp the electrical grid. The party did not give a precise figure but said that the plan “has been estimated to cost somewhat less” than the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion.

The Greens have vowed to scrap the expansion and put that money toward the project.

Upgrading the electric grid to 100 per cent sustainable energy would also be a cost-effective, long-term solution, the Greens believe, though critics say Ottawa is making electricity more expensive for Albertans amid the transition.

“Current projects for renewable energy in Canada and worldwide are consistently at lower capital and operating costs than any type of fossil, hydro or nuclear energy project,” the party spokesperson said.

The party’s platform includes other potential sources of money, including closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, cracking down on offshore tax dodging and a new corporate tax on e-commerce companies, such as Facebook, Amazon and Netflix. The Greens have also vowed to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies.

As for the economic realities, Katz-Rosene acknowledged that May’s plan may appeal to “radical” voters who view economic growth as anathema to addressing climate change.

But while May’s plan would be disruptive, it isn’t anti-capitalist, he said.

“It’s restrained capitalism. But it by no means an anti-capitalist platform, and none of the parties have an anti-capitalist platform by any stretch of the imagination,” Katz-Rosene said.

From an economist’s perspective, Bernard said the plan is still “very costly” and that taxes can only go so far.

“In the end, no corporation operates at a loss. At some stage, these taxes have to go to the users,” he said.

But conversations around money must also consider the cost of inaction on climate change, Hudema said.

“Costing (Elizabeth May) is always a concern and how we’re going to afford these things is something we definitely need to keep top of mind. But within that conversation we need to look at what is the cost of not doing what is in line with what the science is saying. I would say that cost is much more substantial.”

“The forecast, if we don’t act – it’s astronomical.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California fossil fuel grid reliability plan addresses heat wave demand, rolling blackouts, and grid stability by temporarily procuring gas generation while accelerating renewables, storage, and transmission to meet clean energy and carbon-neutral targets by 2045.

Key Points

A stop-gap policy to prevent blackouts by buying fossil power while fast-tracking renewables, storage, and grid upgrades.

✅ Temporary procurement of gas to avoid rolling blackouts

✅ Accelerates renewables, storage, transmission permitting

✅ Aims for carbon neutrality by 2045 without new gas plants

California wants to quit fossil fuels. Just not yet Faced with a fragile electrical grid and the prospect of summertime blackouts, the state agreed to put aside hundreds of millions of dollars to buy power from fossil fuel plants that are scheduled to shut down as soon as next year.

That has prompted a backlash from environmental groups and lawmakers who say Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s approach could end up extending the life of gas plants that have been on-track to close for more than a decade and could threaten the state’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2045.

“The emphasis that the governor has been making is ‘We’re going to be Climate Leaders; we’re going to do 100 percent clean energy; we’re going to lead the nation and the world,’” said V. John White, executive director of the Sacramento-based Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a non-profit group of environmental advocates and clean energy companies. “Yet, at least a part of this plan means going the opposite direction.”

That plan was a last-minute addition to the state’s energy budget, which lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled Legislature reluctantly passed. Backers say it’s necessary to avoid the rolling blackouts like the state experienced during a heat wave in 2020. Critics see a muddled strategy on energy, and not what they expected from a nationally ambitious governor who has made climate action a centerpiece of his agenda.

The legislation, which some Democrats labeled as “lousy” and “crappy,” reflects the reality of climate change. Heat waves are already straining power capacity, and the transition to cleaner energy isn’t coming fast enough to meet immediate needs in the nation’s most populous state.

Officials have warned that outages would be possible this summer, as the grid faces heat wave tests again, with as many as 3.75 million California homes losing power in a worst-case scenario of a West-wide heat wave and insufficient electrical supplies, particularly in the evenings.

It’s also an acknowledgment of the political reality that blackout politics are hazardous to elected officials, even in a state dominated by one party.

Newsom emphasized that the money to prop up the power grid, part of a larger $4.3 billion energy spending package, is meant as a stop-gap measure. The bill allows the Department of Water Resources to spend $2.2 billion on “new emergency and temporary generators, new storage systems, clean generation projects, and funding on extension of existing generation operations, if any occur,” the governor said in a statement after signing the bill.

“Action is needed now to maintain reliable energy service as the State accelerates the transition to clean energy,” Newsom said.

Following the signing, the governor called for the state California Air Resources Board to add a set of ambitious goals to its 2022 Scoping Plan, which lays out California’s path for reducing carbon emissions.

Among Newsom’s requested changes is a move away from fossil fuels, asking state agencies to prepare for an energy transition that avoids the need for new natural gas plants.

Alex Stack, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement that California has been a global leader in reducing pollution and exporting energy policies across Western states, and pointed to Newsom’s recent letter to the Air Resources Board as well as one sent to President Joe Biden outlining how states can work with the federal government to combat climate change.

“California took action to streamline permitting for clean energy projects to accelerate the build out of clean energy that is needed to meet our climate goals and help maintain reliability in the face of extreme heat, wildfires, and drought,” Stack said.

But the prospect of using state money on fossil fuel power, even in the short term, has raised ire among the state’s many environmental advocacy groups, and raised questions about whether California will be able to achieve its goals.

“What is so frustrating about an energy bill like this is that we are at crunch time to meet these goals,” said Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters. “And we’re investing a scale of funding into things that exacerbate those goals.”
 
Emmanuelle Chriqui and Mary Creasman speak during the 2021 Environmental Media Association IMPACT Summit at Pendry West Hollywood on September 2, 2021 in West Hollywood, California. | Jesse Grant/Getty Images for Environmental Media Association

With climate change-induced drought and high temperatures continuing to ravage the West, California anticipates the demand on the grid will only continue to grow. Despite more than a decade of bold posturing and efforts to transition to solar, wind and hydropower, the state worries it doesn’t have enough renewable energy sources on hand to keep the power on in an emergency right now, amid a looming shortage that will test reliability.

The specter of power outages poses a hazard to Newsom, and Democrats in general, especially ahead of November. While the governor is widely expected to sail to reelection, rolling blackouts are a serious political liability — in 2003, they were the catalyst for recalling Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. A lack of power isn’t just about people sweating in the dark, said Steven Maviglio, a longtime Democratic consultant who served as communications director for Davis, it can affect businesses, travel and have an outsized impact on the economy.

It behooves any state official to keep the power on, but, unlike Davis, Newsom is under serious pressure to make sure the state also adheres to its climate goals.

“Gavin Newsom’s brand is based on climate change and clean air, so it’s a little more difficult for him to say ‘well that’s not as important as keeping the power on,’” Maviglio said.

The same bill effectively ends local government control over those projects, for the time being. It hopes to speed up the state’s production of renewable energy sources by giving exclusive authority over the siting of those projects to a single state agency for the next seven years.

Environmental advocates say the state is now scrambling to address an issue they’ve long known was coming. In 2010, California officials set a schedule to retire a number of coastal gas plants that rely on what’s known as once-through cooling systems, which are damaging to the environment, especially marine life, even as regulators weigh more power plants to maintain reliability today. Many of those plants have been retired since 2010, but others have received extensions.

The remaining plants have various deadlines for when they must cease operations, with the soonest being the end of 2023.

Also at issue is the embattled Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, California’s largest electricity source. The Pacific Gas & Electric-owned plant is scheduled to close in 2025, but the strain on the grid has officials considering the possibility of seeking an extension. Newsom said earlier this spring he would be open to extending the life of the plant. Doing so would also require federal approval.

Al Muratsuchi stands and talks into a microphone with a mask on. 
Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi speaks during an Assembly session in Sacramento, Calif., on Jan. 31, 2022. | Rich Pedroncelli/AP Photo

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 1245, a labor union, sees the energy package as a way to preserve Diablo Canyon, and jobs at the plant.

“The value to 1245 PG&E members at Diablo Canyon is clear — funding to keep the plant open,” the union said of the bill.

Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Los Angeles) criticized the bill as “crappy” when it came to the floor in late June, describing it as “a rushed, unvetted and fossil-fuel-heavy response” to the state’s need to bolster the grid.

“The state has had over 12 years to procure and bring online renewable energy generation to replace these once through cooling gas power plants,” Muratsuchi said. “Yet, the state has reneged on its promise to shut down these plants, not once, but twice already.”

Not all details of the state’s energy budget are final. Lawmakers still have $3.8 billion to allocate when they return on Aug. 1 for the final stretch of the year.

Creasman, at California Environmental Voters, said she wants lawmakers to set specific guidelines for how and where it will spend the $2.2 billion when they return in August to dole out the remaining money in the budget. Newsom and legislators also need to ensure that this is the last time California has to spend money on fossil fuel, she said.

“Californians deserve to see what the plan is to make sure we’re not in this position again of having to choose between making climate impacts worse or keeping our lights on,” Creasman said. “That’s a false choice.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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