Mass firings at the Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday included all staff of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a federally-funded initiative which helps vulnerable families afford their electricity and gas bills. Consumer advocates say the layoffs threaten hundreds of millions in assistance already approved by Congress but not yet sent to states. LIHEAP was created in 1981 and typically enjoys bipartisan support. Electric utilities support the program, calling it a “vital source of aid” for about 6 million low-income households annually. Federal funds are authorized by Congress and directed to state programs that administer LIHEAP benefits. While these state programs have funding to continue to operate for the coming months, “the elimination of federal staff threatens the stability of this popular, essential program in the coming fiscal years,” the National Consumer Law Center and National Energy Assistance Directors Association said in a joint statement. LIHEAP received about $4.1 billion in fiscal year 2024, and Congress continued funding at that level for 2025. Most of the funds have already been released to the states but about 10% remains, and those cannot be released until HHS determines the state-by-state allocation, NEADA Executive Director Mark Wolfe said in an email. “The person responsible for making the calculations was also laid off Monday morning,” Wolfe said. “My concern is that the administration could say that without an allocation or staff to oversee the funding, they cannot distribute the $378 million to the states.” “It’s critical that HHS ensure there is no disruption to the administration of the LIHEAP program in order to protect families during future hot summers and cold winters,” NCLC Senior Attorney Olivia Wein said. HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. called the HHS layoffs “a difficult moment,” but said in a post on X that “this overhaul is

Dive Brief: Energy storage systems, as well as other newer forms of distributed energy resources, could be particularly vulnerable to cyberattacks and other security risks because of their reliance on cloud-based computer software, experts said Tuesday during a panel hosted by the Clean Energy States Alliance. While the panelists said they were not aware of any direct attacks on energy storage systems to date and acknowledged the importance of energy storage to the energy transition, they also said such systems would require greater cybersecurity safeguards than more traditional energy technologies. Speakers urged regulators and utilities to run a cybersecurity risk assessment and put protocols into place for addressing potential cybersecurity breaches within their energy storage or distributed resource networks. Dive Insight: Energy storage, coupled with other distributed energy resources and cloud computing, represents a major potential boon to the energy transition and utilities, Howard Gugel, senior vice president of regulatory oversight at the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, said during the CESA panel. But while connectivity to the cloud can enable remote repairs at a mass scale and other impressive feats, he said this same capability also gives him some reason for pause. “It raised a wow factor from two perspectives,” he said of his recent observation of a mass update sent out to an inverter-based resource. “One, wow isn’t it great that we are able to respond quickly and fix a problem … But then the other wow is, if this were to fall into the wrong hands … this could have been a bad situation.” Gugel noted that while energy storage isn’t unique in this regard, the fact that most energy storage systems are relatively new means they are more likely to integrate some form of Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connection, and to rely on software or data based

Dive Brief: Marc Sacks, a Department of Justice attorney arguing on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sought distance from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s accusations of fraud during a Wednesday hearing in a lawsuit filed by Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant recipients whose funding has been frozen. Sacks argued for EPA’s right to freeze the funding based on a clause in the August 2024 grant agreement which allowed the agency to terminate a contract based on grantee compliance with EPA’s general terms and conditions, saying a dispute exists over whether or not that gave EPA “the right at that point in time to terminate for agency priorities.” District Judge Tanya Chutkan noted that this was a shift away from EPA’s public argument, as its termination letter to the grantees had alleged “waste, fraud, and abuse … That you were launching investigations, and you know there was malfeasance. You seem to be abandoning that position now.” Dive Insight: Zeldin has commented several times on the freeze since it began Feb. 16, frequently alleging grantee fraud and stating in a March 5 release that “$20 billion was given to just eight pass-through nongovernmental entities in an effort riddled with self-dealing, conflicts of interest, and an extreme lack of qualifications.” In a March 2 letter to Acting Inspector General Nicole Murley, Acting Deputy EPA Administrator Chad McIntosh said that fund holder Citibank had voluntarily paused further disbursements of GGRF funding, then cited “reckless financial management, blatant conflicts of interest, astonishing sums of tax dollars awarded to unqualified recipients, and severe deficiencies in regulatory oversight under the prior administration.” McIntosh also cited “an unusual and apparently improper structure of the agreements governing the administration of the GGRF altogether excluded EPA from being a party to Account Control Agreements (ACAs) with subrecipients.” Sacks argued

UK energy companies are expected to avoid doing business in the United States as a result of Trump slapping a 10% tariff on British exports. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has unveiled a series of new tariffs that are due to come into effect on 9 April, in addition to plans to increase existing tariffs on steel and aluminium. “Overreaching tariff regimes have always been detrimental to business, and given its global reach and interconnectedness, the energy supply chain will not be spared from that,” said Rebecca Groundwater, the Energy Industries Council’s (EIC) head of external affairs. She said that if companies are currently operational in the US, they may be able to absorb the latest regulatory and policy changes from the White House. “But for those considering the US as a potential market, these increased costs of doing business and operations will give them pause,” Groundwater said. “We anticipate these organisations will instead turn to other markets where the ease of doing business, regulatory framework, and policy environment are more stable.” Unstable regions “do not entice business”, she warned, as the US moved to impose a 10% levy on all imported manufactured goods from the UK. The organisation declined to comment on the impact of Brexit on the UK’s position, as the US tariff on Europe will be nearly double at 20%. Industry trade body Make UK called on the UK government to set up a tariffs taskforce to create a dialogue with industry. Make UK’s chief executive officer Stephen Phipson called the export tariff changes “devastating”. He said: “The US president’s announcement of 10% tariffs on UK goods exported to the United States and 25% tariffs on British made autos, steel and aluminium is devastating for UK manufacturing. “Not only will volumes of direct exports to the US

Of all the production hubs in the North Sea, the top four producers have remained unchanged since 2023; however, with the right policy, BP might climb the rankings. Dundas Consultants has ranked the top 15 highest producing hubs in UK waters, and despite TotalEnergies’ recent statement that it sees “little future” in the country, it still controls the top two. The French supermajor’s Elgin and Culzean hubs hold the first and second place spots on the league table, respectively. The next three, Clair, Glen Lyon, and ETAP, are all operated by the London-listed BP, and according to Dundas director Richard Woodhouse, its highest-ranked of the trio has the potential to climb higher. “The large oil in place in the West of Shetland Clair area arising from the very large size of the oil bearing structures mean that there could in time, still be large development projects taking place to increase the production over the hub, in particular at the Clair South area,” Woodhouse explained. The Clair South development is now referred to by BP simply as Clair phase three. © Supplied by Dundas ConsultantsThe top 15 production hubs in UK waters. Source: Dundas Consultants. This comes as the top four hubs have all seen a double-digit downturn in production. “If we look at the decline in production from 2023 to 2024, we have 21% for Elgin, 19% for Culzean and 13% each for Clair and Glen Lyon hubs,” Woodhouse added. “If those decline rates continued into the future, the top 4 league table positions would not actually change.” So, in order to see a shake-up in the table, there needs to be “game changers for the hubs”, and this is on the cards for BP. © Supplied by BPBP started up Clair Ridge – the oilfield’s second phase – in

Speaking at Hampton Court Palace on the sidelines of the Terra Carta Sustainable Markets Initiative sustainable transition summit, Tokamak Energy chief executive Warrick Matthews described how his job involves “myth busting” around nuclear fusion. In an exclusive interview, he explains how the company is on a path to commercialising nuclear fusion technology after raising $150 million from existing and strategic investors in November. Energy Voice: Can you tell me any more about Tokamak’s tech scale-up prototype for wind power? Warrick Matthews: We’re 15 years old as a company and our founders spun out of UKAEA (the UK Atomic Energy Authority). They had operated a conventional tokamak. A tokamak is a device to hold plasma in a strong magnetic field. The conventional tokamak looks like a doughnut, a Torus. Our device looks a bit more like a cored apple shape. Future machines have to have superconductors. You put energy into them and at an operating temperature they have zero resistance. They can carry very high currents, which is why they’re suddenly interesting for power transmission. Or you can wind them into coil packs and produce very high-field magnets – that’s the magnet that goes in a big sort of D-shape, or in a ring around the plasma. You mentioned how tokamaks can be used for power generation. Please elaborate.We’re engaged across numerous verticals [with] strategic partners now in propulsion – in water, on land for rail, in the air for new hybrid propulsion and then in space. When you look at the biggest, highest power-output offshore wind turbines, they’re enormous and expensive and a lot of the design is based around the nacelle at the top – which is extremely heavy because it’s got hundreds of tonnes of rare-earth permanent magnet installed in the machine. If you replace that with the