Partnership to explore offshore wind-hydrokinetic power

Mexico Energy Reform Defeat underscores opposition unity as CFE-first rules, state regulators, and lithium nationalization falter amid USMCA concerns, investment risks, and clean energy transition impacts in Congress over power generation policy.

Key Points

The failed push to expand CFE control, flagged for USMCA risks, higher costs, regulator shifts, and slower clean energy transition.

✅ Bill to mandate 54% CFE generation and priority dispatch failed.

✅ Opposition cited USMCA breaches, higher prices, slower clean energy.

✅ Lithium nationalization to return via separate legislation.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's plan to increase state control of power generation was defeated in parliament on Sunday, as opposition parties united in the face of a bill they said would hurt investment and breach international obligations, concerns mirrored by rulings such as the Florida court on electricity monopolies that scrutinize market concentration.

His National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) and its allies fell nearly 60 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed in the 500-seat lower house of Congress, mustering just 275 votes after a raucous session that lasted more than 12 hours.

Seeking to roll back previous constitutional reforms that liberalized the electricity market, Lopez Obrador's proposed changes would have done away with a requirement that state-owned Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE) sell the cheapest electricity first, a move reminiscent of debates when energy groups warned on pricing changes under federal proposals, allowing it to sell its own electricity ahead of other power companies.

Under the bill, the CFE would also have been set to generate a minimum of 54% of the country's total electricity, and energy regulation would have been shifted from independent bodies to state regulators, paralleling concerns raised when a Calgary retailer opposed a market overhaul over regulatory impacts.

The contentious proposals faced much criticism from business groups and the United States, Mexico's top trade partner as well as other allies who argued it would violate the regional trade deal, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), even as the USA looks to Canada for green power to deepen cross-border energy ties.

Lopez Obrador had argued the bill would have protected consumers and made the country more energy independent, echoing how Texas weighs market reforms to avoid blackouts to bolster reliability, saying the legislation was vital to his plans to "transform" Mexico.

Although the odds were against his party, he came into the vote seeking to leverage his victory in last weekend's referendum on his leadership.

Speaking ahead of the vote, Jorge Alvarez Maynez, a lawmaker from the opposition Citizens' Movement party, said the proposals, if enacted, would damage Mexico, pointing to experiences like the Texas electricity market bailout after a severe winter storm as cautionary examples.

"There isn't a specialist, academic, environmentalist or activist with a smidgen of doubt - this bill would increase electricity prices, slow the transition to (clean) energy in our country and violate international agreements," he added.

Supporters of clean-energy goals noted that subnational shifts, such as the New Mexico 100% clean electricity bill can illustrate alternative pathways to reform.

The bill also contained a provision to nationalize lithium resources.

Lopez Obrador said this week that if the bill was defeated, he would send another bill to Congress on Monday aiming to have at least the lithium portion of the proposed legislation passed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pennsylvania Clean Energy Employment surges, highlighting workforce growth in energy efficiency, solar, wind, grid and storage, and alternative transportation, supporting COVID-19 recovery, high-wage jobs, manufacturing, construction, and statewide economic resilience.

Key Points

Jobs across clean power, efficiency, grid, storage, and advanced transport fueling Pennsylvania's workforce growth.

✅ 8.7% job growth from 2017-2019, outpacing statewide average

✅ 97,000+ employed across efficiency, solar, wind, grid, and fuels

✅ 75% earn above median; strong full-time opportunities

The 2020 Pennsylvania Clean Energy Employment Report has been released, and Gov. Tom Wolf is energized by it.

This "comes at an opportune time, as government and industry leaders look to strengthen Pennsylvania's workforce and economy in response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic," Wolf said Monday in a prepared statement. "This detailed analysis of data and trends in clean energy employment ... demonstrates the sector was a top job generator statewide, and shows which industries were hiring and looking for trained workers."

Foremost among the findings, released Monday, is that the clean energy sector was responsible for adding 7,794 jobs from 2017 through 2019. That is an 8.7% average job growth rate, well above the 1.9% overall average in the state, according to a news release from Wolf's office.

This report lists employment data in five industries: energy efficiency; clean energy generation; alternative transportation; clean grid and storage; and clean fuels, while some cleaner states still import dirty electricity in regional markets.

The energy efficiency industry was the biggest clean energy employer in the state last year, with more than 71,400 state residents working in construction, technology and manufacturing jobs related to energy-efficient systems.

Solar energy workers comprised the largest share of the clean energy generation workforce – 35.4%, or 5,173 individuals. Solar employment increased 8.3% from 2017 to 2019, while there was a slight decline nationwide amid clean energy job losses reported in May.

Wind energy firms employed 2,937, and policy moves such as Ontario's clean electricity regulations signal broader market shifts, with more than 21% of those roles in manufacturing.

Job losses, though, were recorded in nuclear generation (minus 4.5%) and coal generation (minus 8.6%) over the two-year period, as electricity deregulation remains a point of debate in the sector. This mirrors national declines in both categories.

Federal efforts to support coal community revitalization are channeling clean energy projects to hard-hit regions.

Natural gas electric generation capacity doubled across Pennsylvania over the past decade; even as residents could face winter electricity price increases according to recent reports, employment still grew 13.4% from 2017 through 2019. But increasing output from unconventional wells has outpaced demand, sparking reductions in siting and drilling for new wells.

The Clean Energy Employment Report was released along with – and as part of – the 2020 Pennsylvania Energy Employment Report, which asserts that energy remains a large employer in the state, and new clean energy funding announcements underscore the sector's momentum. As of the last quarter of 2019, according to the larger report, energy accounted for 269,031 jobs, or 4.5% of the overall statewide workforce.

Wolf, in summary, said: "This report shows that workforce training investment decisions can benefit Pennsylvanians right now and position the state going forward to grow and improve livelihoods, the economy and our environment."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro COVID-19 Bill Relief offers pandemic support with bill credits, rate cuts, and deferred payments for residential, small business, and industrial customers across B.C., easing utilities costs during COVID-19 economic hardship.

Key Points

COVID-19 bill credits, a rate cut, and deferred payments for eligible B.C. homes, small businesses, and industrial customers.

✅ Non-repayable credits equal to 3 months of average bills.

✅ Small businesses closed can skip bills for three months.

✅ Large industry may defer 50% of electricity costs.

B.C. residents who have lost their jobs or had their wages cut will get a three-month break on BC Hydro bills, while small businesses, amid commercial consumption plummets during COVID-19, are also eligible to apply for similar relief.

Premier John Horgan said Wednesday the credit for residential customers will be three times a household’s average monthly bill over the past year and does not have to be repaid as part of the government’s support package during the COVID-19 pandemic, as BC Hydro demand down 10% highlights the wider market pressures.

He said small businesses that are closed will not have to pay their power bills for three months, and in Ontario an Ontario COVID-19 hydro rebate complemented similar relief, and large industrial customers, including those operating mines and pulp mills, can opt to have 50 per cent of their electricity costs deferred, though a deferred costs report warned of long-term liabilities.

BC Hydro rates will be cut for all customers by one per cent as of April 1, a move similar to Ontario 2021 rate reductions that manufacturers supported lower rates at the time, after the B.C. Utilities Commission provided interim approval of an application the utility submitted last August.

Eligible residential customers can apply for bill relief starting next week and small business applications will be accepted as of April 14, while staying alert to BC Hydro scam attempts during this period, with the deadline for both categories set at June 30.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

UK Energy Network Profits are under scrutiny as Ofgem price controls, Citizens Advice claims, and National Grid margins spark debate over monopolies, allowed returns, consumer bills, rebates, and future investment under tougher regulation.

Key Points

UK Energy Network Profits are returns set by Ofgem for regulated grid operators, shaping consumer bills and investment

✅ Ofgem sets allowed returns for monopoly networks via price controls

✅ Dispute over interest rates, bond yields, and risk premiums

✅ Reforms proposed: shorter controls, tougher investor incentives

Companies that run Britain’s electricity and gas networks, including National Grid, are making “eye-watering” profits at the expense of households, according to a well-known consumer group.

Citizens Advice believes £7.5bn in “unjustified” profits should be returned to consumers who pay for network costs via their electricity and gas bills, with parallels seen in a deferred BC Hydro costs report abroad, although its figures have been contested by the energy industry and regulator.

Ownership of electricity and gas networks came under the spotlight in the run-up to June’s general election, after the Labour party said in its manifesto it would bring both national and regional grid infrastructure to back into public ownership, amid wider debates about grid privatization concerns elsewhere, over time.

Electricity sector privatisation began in 1990 and the gas industry was privatised in 1986. Energy network companies — which own and operate the cables and wires that help deliver electricity and gas to homes and businesses — are in effect monopolies that are regulated by Ofgem. Ofgem evaluates what their costs, including the cost of capital to finance investments, might be over an eight-year “price control” period, similar to determinations like the OEB decision on Hydro One rates in Ontario, Canada. Citizens Advice claims many of the regulator’s calculations for the most recent price control went “considerably in networks’ financial favour”.

It believes assumptions Ofgem made about factors such as the future path of interest rates and returns on government bonds were too generous, with international contrasts like power theft challenges in India illustrating different risk contexts, as was the regulator’s assessment of the risk associated with operating a network company. 

These “generous” assumptions will lead to network companies making average profit margins of 19 per cent and an average return of 10 per cent for their investors at the expense of consumers, Citizens Advice claims in a report published on Wednesday, which recommends a shorter price control period to allow for more accurate forecasting.

“Decisions made by Ofgem have allowed gas and electricity network companies to make sky-high profits that we’ve found are not justified by their performance,” said Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice. Ofgem defended its regulatory regime, saying it helped to cut costs, improve reliability and customer satisfaction. 

“Ofgem has already cut costs to consumers by 6 per cent in the current price control and secured a rebate of over £4.5bn from network companies and is engaging with the industry to deliver further savings, with some regions seeing Ontario electricity rate reductions for businesses as well,” said Dermot Nolan, chief executive of the energy regulator.

Mr Nolan insisted the next price controls would be “tougher for investors”. The current price controls for the gas and electricity transmission networks, plus gas distribution, run until 2021 and until 2023 for local electricity distribution networks.

“While we don’t agree with its modelling and the figures it has produced, the Citizens Advice report raises some important issues about network regulation which will be addressed in the next control,” Mr Nolan said.

The Energy Networks Association, a trade body, refuted the claims of Citizens Advice, insisting that costs had fallen by 17 per cent in real terms since privatisation. The current regulatory framework was established after a public consultation, it said, adding that today’s report repeated several old claims that had previously been rejected by the Competition and Markets Authority.

“Our energy networks are among the most reliable and lowest cost in the world and their performance has never been better. In the next six years energy network companies are forecasted to deliver £45bn of investment in the UK economy,” a spokesman for the networks association added. National Grid said that since 2013 it had generated savings of £460m for bill payers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business 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

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News