There is continuing news of further delays to Boris Johnson’s energy strategy which has now been pushed back until at least 5 April due, the Guardian reports, to “a row with Rishi Sunak about funding a new generation of up to eight nuclear power stations costing the public more than £13bn”. According to the newspaper, Johnson wants one quarter of electricity generation to come from nuclear power by 2050, but Sunak is “concerned about the cost to the taxpayer, or extra costs added to soaring energy bills”. It continues: “Downing Street sources denied any ‘showdown’ between Johnson and Sunak, who are due to sit down and ‘talk calmly’ through energy strategy issues in the next few days…If an agreement cannot be reached by 14 April then the strategy may have to be delayed until after the May local elections because major announcements cannot be made during the ‘purdah’ period beforehand.” The i newspaper says that Johnson wants to build six or seven new plants the size of Hinkley Point C, but adds that Sunak is “concerned that the vast investment in nuclear would not provide the taxpayer with value for money”. According to the Times, Sunak “is thought to be pushing Johnson to limit the government’s commitment to two plants on top of one being built at Hinkley Point”. The Independent calls the delay is a “fresh embarrassment” for Johnson, in a piece headlined: “Boris Johnson’s ‘energy plan’ delayed again as Rishi Sunak ‘won’t provide any new money’.”

BBC News says it understands that “there are split opinions over other elements of the strategy, as well as nuclear”. For example, it notes that some ministers and Tory MPs pushed the government to re-examine fracking, but adds that “the government’s moratorium on fracking will remain in place unless they believe the science has changed and it is deemed safe”. The Daily Mirror adds that “splits are said to have emerged at the top of government over fracking, onshore wind and expansion of nuclear power”. Separately, the Guardian reports on “cabinet divisions” over the energy independence strategy, outlining the positions of different cabinet ministers. And Politico carries a piece entitled: “Britain’s net-zero wars heat up as both sides claim fresh MP backers.” The outlet notes that the Tory “net-zero scrutiny group” now has 58 members, but says that “rival pro-green caucuses are also growing”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has proposed tripling the number of solar powers in the UK and doubling onshore wind power by 2030. “The plans for solar and onshore wind generation would be the first government targets for these technologies,” the paper says. Elsewhere, the Independent reports that green groups have written an open letter calling on the government to “unblock” onshore wind in England and increase the UK’s clean energy supply ahead of the energy security strategy. It adds that 70% of people support the installation of more onshore wind turbines in the UK, according to polls. And the Times reports that “a 50% stake in a huge offshore wind farm being built off the Yorkshire coast has been sold for £3bn to a pair of French investors”.

In other UK news, Sky News reports that a cross-party Environmental Audit Committee of MPs have warned that “technologies that capture carbon dioxide and store it underground could distract from targets to cut emissions and see ‘heavy emitters dodge their responsibilities’”.

The European Union has launched a case against the UK, claiming that new criteria introduced by the UK government over offshore wind subsidies breaches World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the Financial Times reports. The paper quotes a statement from the European Commission, which says: “The criteria used by the UK government in awarding subsidies for offshore wind energy projects favour UK over imported content. This violates the WTO’s core tenet that imports must be able to compete on an equal footing with domestic products and harms EU suppliers, including many SMEs, in the green energy sector.” According to the newspaper, the UK government say it will “rigorously contest” the claim. “The two sides have 60 days to reach an agreement at the WTO before Brussels could demand a panel of arbiters rule on the dispute, which could take at least a year,” the newspaper adds. The Daily Telegraph quotes a Whitehall source: “At a time when the West should be united in defeating Putin, this act of envy by Brussels is ill-judged and ill-timed. We should be working together to strengthen European clean energy security, not fighting this out in court. Our policies to boost Britain’s offshore wind industry are comparable to many other schemes in the EU, so we are puzzled why Brussels are challenging our scheme when they do pretty much the same.” Meanwhile, Reuters says that this is the EU’s “first-ever challenge against Britain at the WTO over its former member’s green subsidy scheme”.

The US Department of Commerce have launched an investigation into whether Chinese solar panel manufacturers are “illegally circumventing solar tariffs by routing operations through four countries in Southeast Asia”, the Wall Street Journal reports. The investigation was launched at the request of Auxin Solar Inc – a California-based solar module manufacturer which says that “Chinese solar manufacturers have circumvented tariffs on their solar cells and panels by shifting production to nearby countries” – according to the paper. It continues: “The investigation could culminate in the imposition of significant tariffs on solar cells and modules from Chinese companies operating out of Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia…Those countries produce roughly 80% of solar modules expected to be imported into the US this year, and the threat that tariffs could be imposed retroactively will impede new projects, said Craig Cornelius, chairman of the American Clean Power Association, a trade group representing wind, solar and storage industries.” Associated Press says that the investigation could “dramatically undercut President Joe Biden’s ambitious climate goals”. It adds: “Clean energy leaders said the investigation — which could result in retroactive tariffs of up to 240% – would severely hinder the US solar industry, leading to thousands of layoffs and imperilling up to 80% of planned solar projects in the US. Such an outcome would jeopardise one of Biden’s top clean energy goals and run counter to his administration’s push for renewable energy such as wind and solar power.” Reuters, Bloomberg and the Hill also cover the story.

In other US news, Bloomberg reports that President Biden’s budget plan includes $11bn in climate finance – “more than 10 times the amount lawmakers doled out to the effort in fiscal 2022”. It adds: “Overall, Biden is seeking some $50bn for programs to address climate change, including $18bn to build the U.S. government’s resilience to a warming world, $3.3bn in funding for clean energy projects and at least $20m for a new Civilian Climate Corps envisioned to put Americans to work preventing wildfires, restoring wetlands and making homes more energy efficient. To help pay for the moves, Biden is asking Congress to eliminate some $43.6bn worth of tax incentives cherished by the oil and gas industry, including deductions for intangible drilling costs and low-production wells. ” Meanwhile, the Hill reports that the White House’s proposed budget for fiscal 2023 would increase funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by $1.5bn.

And Associated Press reports that the US is seeking new lithium sources for use in batteries to achieve its clean energy goals.

The G7 has agreed to reject Moscow’s demand to pay for energy imports from Russia in rubles, the Independent reports via AP. The paper quotes German economy minister Robert Habeck: “All G7 ministers agreed completely that this (would be) a one-sided and clear breach of the existing contracts.” The Financial Times says the “standoff” between Russia and the G7 is “raising new doubts about the fuel’s supply to Europe”. It continues: “The statement raised the possibility of gas supplies to Europe being cut off should the two sides be unable to agree on a payment currency. Habeck said G7 countries were ‘prepared’ for ‘all scenarios’, including a potential halt to Russian energy supplies.” Der Spiegel and Reuters also covers the development.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that “Ukraine’s pipelines are still carrying Russian gas to Europe”. Similarly, Reuters says that Russian deliveries of gas to Europe on three main pipeline routes were stable on Monday morning. “Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom said on Monday that it was continuing to supply natural gas to Europe via Ukraine in line with requests from European consumers,” Reuters reports separately.

Elsewhere, Bloomberg says that Russia’s oil exports “shrivelled by more than a quarter in the week 17-23 March compared with the prior week”. Meanwhile, Reuters says that “United Arab Emirates energy minister Suhail al-Mazrouei on Monday told Emirati state news agency WAM that oil should not be withheld from any country because ‘the world is in dire need’ of these supplies.” Separately, the newswire reports that al-Mazrouei said “oil producers who felt like outcasts at the COP 26 climate conference last year are now being treated like superheroes because their supplies are in strong demand”.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has told MPs that he will not take any further action to ease the pressure of rising energy bills before autumn, the Independent report. According to the paper, Sunak said “it would not be ‘appropriate’ to take further action until it was clear how far the energy price cap will rise in the autumn, and said that even then he would only act ‘if necessary’”. The newspaper adds: “Justifying his decision to delay before offering any further help on bills, he stressed the “volatility” of energy prices as a result of the invasion of Ukraine.” The Times notes that “the energy price cap will rise from about £1,300 per year to nearly £2,000 on Friday, and forecasts have suggested that it will rise to £2,800 in October”. And the i newspaper adds: “Questioned by MPs on last week’s spring statement, the chancellor admitted for the first time that Brexit appeared to have hit the UK’s economic growth.” This comes as the Times reports that governor of the Bank of England – Andrew Bailey – warns that UK households are facing a bigger shock from energy prices this year than at any time during the 1970s oil crisis. Meanwhile, analysis by Sky News finds that “even if raw energy costs remain relatively stable, households still face a further bill shock from the autumn – on top of this Friday’s average annual rise of almost £700”.

Meanwhile, the Times reports that “the power market is facing its biggest overhaul in decades after National Grid said that wholesale electricity should be traded at local prices that vary from town to town”. The newspaper says: “At present, power plant owners can sell their electricity on the national market, even if there are not enough cables to take that power to where there is consumer demand. That is forcing National Grid’s control room to pay wind and solar farms in remote locations to switch off at times when the network cannot cope and to pay expensive gas plants closer to consumers to switch on and replace them. These ‘constraint’ costs, which are passed on to consumers via their energy bills, have risen sevenfold since 2010 as more renewables have been built, hitting £1.2bn in 2021.” Meanwhile, the Press Association reports that the National Grid has sold a controlling stake in its gas grid to raise money to invest in electricity.

In other UK news, the Daily Telegraph warns that “Britain is at risk of having to import 80% of its gas by 2030 unless major investment in the North Sea is allowed to go ahead”.

Electric vehicles are “a headache for the exchequer” because they do not generate revenue from fuel duty and vehicle excise duty, says an editorial in the Financial Times. It cites forecasts which predict that “the higher share of electric car sales alone will reduce motoring tax revenues by £2.1bn by 2026-27”. The piece continues: “One way to help balance the books might be to remove the subsidy regime, which has already been scaled back over the past decade and is now capped at a £1,500 grant on electric cars costing less than £32,000 – helpful support for EV sales. This would be foolhardy. The EV market is still in the nascent stages of growth, and government support to improve uptake will be warranted for some time yet.” Another option would be “using road user charging as a like-for like replacement for fuel duty”, the editorial notes. However, it says that this measure “risks disincentivising take-up of EVs, whose users currently benefit from lower road-related taxes”. It concludes: “A broad-based carbon tax may ultimately be the most efficient replacement to fuel duty. It is fairer than a tax targeted narrowly on cars, and sends an important market signal about the UK commitment to decarbonisation.”

Elsewhere, Times writer Hugo Rifkind says that we should “embrace” electric bikes as “greener and more fun than electric cars”. Meanwhile, climate-sceptic commentator Andrew Orlowski has penned an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph entitled, “Electric cars have a very dirty secret”, which tries to argue that “the technological flaws of a battery-powered car haven’t gone away”.

In other UK comment, an editorial in the Daily Mail argues that “with renewables and imports of oil and gas unreliable, nuclear power is a necessity, not a luxury”. Meanwhile, Phil McNally – a senior researcher on net-zero at the Tony Blair Institute – has penned a piece in City AM entitled, “Political stasis on energy policy will throw us further into the Dark Ages”, which cites Carbon Brief analysis.

Iryna Stavchuk, Ukraine’s deputy minister of environmental protection, and climate/energy policy expert Oleh Savitskyi explain in the Kyiv Independent which actions are needed for the EU and Ukraine to “phase out Russian oil and gas”. They note that “EU countries have paid the Putin regime nearly €19bn for fossil fuels, including €12bn for natural gas”. They continue: “The EU should make every effort to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to green energy. The problem of fossil fuel addiction creates another global problem – climate change.” The authors recall the EU’s “Fit for 55” package, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030. The article lists specific measures for the implementation of an “accelerated, secure and Paris Agreement compatible” energy transition for the EU. They include “deep and large-scale renovation of buildings, more wind and solar energy capacities, using best available technologies, money flow in energy transition”.

Meanwhile, in a comment piece for Euractiv, Nikos Tsafos – chair in energy and geopolitics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies – calls the European commitment to phase out Russian natural gas “commendable”, but says that “it must be pursued sensibly”. Tsafos notes that Europe wants to build new infrastructure to import liquified “natural” gas (LNG) from exporters such as the US. He says this is “sensible”, but notes that securing enough LNG is “a big undertaking”. He says that Europe should “engage LNG consumers”, “help govern the global gas market” and “add supply” to the global LNG market. Elsewhere, the Financial Times‘ Lex column argues that more LNG vessels might be needed to provide enough LNG to Europe. Meanwhile, Ketan Joshi, a freelance writer specialising in climate and energy, has penned an opinion piece in the Guardian entitled “Russia’s murderous regime is propped up by oil and gas – Australia and the world must switch”. And founder and chief investment officer of Andurand Capital Management, Pierre Andurand, has penned an opinion piece in the Financial Times outlining possible options for sanctioning Russian energy exports.

New research finds “clear geographic discrepancies” in how different communities of hummingbirds in North and South America could change in response to a warming climate. Using 84 communities of interacting plants and hummingbirds, the researchers “simulated patterns in climate-driven extinctions, coextinctions and colonisations under future climate change scenarios”. In North America and lowland South America, the findings indicate that hummingbird communities will see “many climate-driven extinctions and few colonisation events”. Communities in the Andes are likely to be the least affected by future climate change, the paper says, as they will experience “few climate-driven extinctions and coextinctions while having the highest colonisation potential”.