China’s high-stake BHP standoff can also be brief
Ka Sing Chan
A view shows the BHP Limited logo at their headquarters in Melbourne, Australia, March 24, 2025. REUTERS/Hollie Adams/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
HONG KONG, Oct 2 (Reuters Breakingviews) - The iron ore trade between China and Australia is simply too big to break but the balance of power between the buyer and seller is shifting. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Wednesday called China's ban on purchasing new iron ore cargoes from top supplier BHP (BHP.AX), opens new tab "disappointing". But it is a logical time for the People's Republic to assert itself.
China has been preparing for this moment for years. It created China Mineral Resources Group in 2022 to consolidate the country's vast purchases of the commodity. The majority of its iron ore comes from Australia and BHP alone supplied 40% of China’s iron ore imports last year. Yet talks between BHP and China have stalled for months, per Bloomberg, as BHP insists on an annual pricing model anchored to the Platts Iron Ore Index while Chinese buyers want quarterly contracts priced more closely with spot levels, which are about $15 lower per metric tonne.
We recently published 10 Stocks Wall Street is Watching Heading into October. General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) is one of the stocks Wall Street is watching.
Jon McNeill, CEO of DVx Ventures and former Tesla president, said in a recent program on CNBC that the demand for EVs may decline following the end of subsidies but rebound in the long term.
“Demand is continuing to increase around the world. When I land in Tel Aviv, I see a lot of EVs, a lot of Chinese EVs. When I land in Mexico City, I see a lot of EVs and a lot of Chinese EVs. And certainly when you land in China, you see almost every car is an EV, but same thing in Norway. And the reason for that is these cars are a lot less energy cost, a lot less maintenance cost, and they’re super fun to drive because the weight of the center of gravity is actually in the center of the vehicle for the first time.”
Asked what names he’d own, the analyst mentioned General Motors and highlighted the company’s EV business:
“GM has come from the bottom of the charts now to the top of the charts and is the number one or number two player in the US. They’ve created a company several times the size of Rivian just in a few years. And so I wouldn’t rule out the US players, especially GM either. Like the GM released the Chevy Equinox and that is right around the $30,000 price point and that has shown that there is a mass market for these. They’re introducing the Bolt EV, the Bolt 2, early next year. And that’ll be another entry into that price segment. And so I think what they’re seeing is that yeah, there’s demand at that price point for sure.”
Linda Parton / Shutterstock.com
Hotchkis & Wiley Large Cap Fundamental Value Fund stated the following regarding General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) in its Q4 2024 investor letter:
“General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) reported strong Q3 earnings results and improved free cash flow guidance. We like GM for many reasons. First, we believe GM has leading market positions in its main business segments. Second, the valuation is extremely attractive. Finally, we believe it is a strong free cash flow generator, and the management team is committed to repurchasing their undervalued shares.”
While we acknowledge the potential of GM as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-tesla-executive-recommends-general-134636548.html
NATO scrambled war planes during the Russian onslaught. (Image: east2west)
NATO warplanes were scrambled over Poland amid one of Russia’s most intense missile and drone strikes of the war on western Ukraine.
“Polish and allied aircraft are operating intensively in our airspace, while ground-based air defence and radar reconnaissance systems have been brought to the highest state of readiness,” said Poland's operational command on X. “These operations are preventative in nature and aimed at securing airspace and protecting citizens, especially in areas adjacent to the threatened area. The Operational Command of the Polish Armed Forces is monitoring the current situation, and its subordinate forces and resources remain fully prepared for immediate response.”.
The city of Lviv - only 43 miles from the Polish border - was shrouded in choking smoke from raging fires after suffering its worst attack of the entire three and a half year war. Residents were ordered to remain indoors and keep windows closed.
“In Lviv it is just hell right now,” said one report amid reported 25 thunderous strikes over five hours, which led to power cuts.
The Sparrow techno park was ablaze. Mayor Andriy Sadovyi said: “This is a civilian facility, without any military component.”
Russian sources suggested it was used for NATO supplies to Ukraine.
Residential buildings were hit, including those close to the airport, in the city as Putin’s military machine continues to terrorise ordinary Ukrainians.
The Russian strikes on Ukraine involved Kinzhal - or Dagger - hypersonic missiles, each costing £11 million, Kalibr cruise missiles, guiding aerial bombs and approximately 700 drones.
The devastating onslaught included the use of both Tu-95MS and Tu-160 strategic bombers, part of Vladimir Putin’s nuclear strike force, unleashing conventional missiles on Ukraine.
MiG-31 fighter jets were also deployed. Russia hit energy installations - plunging several parts of Ukraine into darkness but also residential buildings.
The western Ivano-Frankivsk region was also struck by Russians targeting the coal-fired Burshtyn power plant.
The Ladyzhyn Thermal Power Plant in Vinnytsia was also reportedly struck.
Odesa was hit, too, with a swarm of drones triggering fires.
Zaporizhzhia was hit by Shahed-type strike drones and guided aerial bombs, cutting electricity and water supplies.
Residential buildings were hit.
One person was killed, and at least 10 were injured. Meanwhile, yet another Russian oil refinery was burning - this time in Kstovo, Nizhny Novgorod region. NASA satellites detected thermal signatures at the plant.
Russia has suffered massive damage to its oil refining and supply infrastructure. from Ukrainian strikes in recent weeks. Russian oil reserves are at a five-year low.
Almost 40% of Russia's oil refinery capacities are not functioning following the wave of Ukrainian strikes. Petrol prices are soaring in many regions, with long, snaking queues at filling stations.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2117275/nato-scrambles-fighter-jets-russia
Construction is underway on a Project Stargate AI infrastructure site, a collaboration between three large tech companies — OpenAI, SoftBank, and Oracle — in Abilene, Texas, in April. | REUTERS
Eli Lilly was asked to produce more insulin; Pfizer to produce more of its top-selling cancer drug Ibrance and its cholesterol drug Lipitor; and London-based AstraZeneca to consider a new headquarters in the U.S., according to two sources. Pharmaceutical executives are getting near-daily calls from staff at the White House — including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles — and senior figures at agencies like Health & Human Services and the Commerce Department, two sources familiar with the matter said.
But pharmaceutical companies are the tip of the iceberg.
Washington is pursuing deals across up to 30 industries, involving dozens of companies deemed critical to national or economic security, according to more than a half dozen people familiar with the talks. In some cases, the administration is offering tariff relief in exchange for concessions, revenue guarantees or taking equity stakes in troubled companies, among other types of help. The fast-paced dealmaking is designed to deliver political wins for U.S. President Donald Trump before the 2026 midterm elections, the sources said. On Tuesday, Trump announced a deal with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla to cut drug prices in exchange for relief from planned tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals. "The United States is done subsidizing healthcare of the rest of the world," Trump said in a event in the Oval Office.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/10/05/trump-white-house-deals-midterms/
Earlier this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves reportedly confirmed that she wants to reduce the number of forecasts published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) from two a year to just one. What are the implications of this for economic policy, and is it something that should be taken forward?
03 October, 2025
Earlier this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves reportedly confirmed that she wants to reduce the number of forecasts published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) from two a year to just one.
The case for doing so is straightforward. The government has committed to holding only one formal fiscal event a year — a Budget in the autumn — with a lighter spring update that includes an OBR forecast but no major policy changes. The idea is that fewer set-piece events allow more time for careful fiscal planning, reduce the frequency of policy changes, and give businesses and households greater certainty about the direction of policy. So far, so good.
In practice, though, this has proved difficult. Last spring’s OBR forecast pointed to a worsening fiscal position, and the Chancellor felt compelled to announce new measures in response. Moving from two forecasts to one would – it is argued — make it easier for the government to stick to a single fiscal event, by reducing the occasions when the Chancellor feels pressured to react with fresh policy.
In this week’s blog, I look at whether this is a good idea or not. Spoiler: I don’t think it is.
The Current Situation
The OBR’s current mandate, enshrined in the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, is to produce economic and fiscal forecasts “at least twice every financial year”.
This twice-yearly rhythm has deep roots. The practice of publishing two official sets of macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts began in the mid-1970s under the Industry Act 1975, which required the Treasury to produce at least two forecasts annually. From the late 1970s through the 1990s these took the form of a spring Budget and an autumn update (eventually formalised as the Autumn Statement), before Gordon Brown re-branded the latter as the Pre-Budget Report in 1997.
When the OBR was created in 2010, it inherited and formalised this long-standing convention, producing forecasts twice yearly to accompany the Budget and the Autumn Statement.
In acting this way, the UK is in line with international good practice. The US Congressional Budget Office produces baseline projections twice a year but updates them more frequently in response to major policy changes. And in the euro area, the European Commission publishes forecasts three times a year.
What is the Optimal Frequency of Forecasts?
Suppose that the OBR faces a fixed cost every time it produces and communicates a new forecast. Those costs include not just the staff time spent running models and gathering information from businesses, economists and policymakers, but also the effort of writing up and publishing the report. On top of that, there is a political cost: each forecast puts the OBR on the front pages, sometimes in a way that challenges the government. In this set-up, the optimal “decision rule” is to update whenever the marginal benefit of a new forecast exceeds this fixed cost. In the jargon, this is called an “S-s” rule: you only adjust when the state of the world moves far enough to justify action.
In other words, the optimal frequency of forecasts is “state-contingent”. This means forecasts should be published whenever significant new information arrives, rather than being based on a fixed calendar. If the fixed costs were negligible, you would publish new forecasts almost continuously, which is more like the information contained in financial market prices. That is not how the OBR (or most other forecasters) currently operates. There have been exceptions though: the Bank of England produced emergency forecasts after Brexit and during Covid.
But while this is the implication of the simple theory, a literal state-contingent approach is unlikely to be desirable in practice. First, it would be operationally impractical to rerun a full forecast exercise whenever new data arrive. Second, the very act of publishing a forecast would itself convey news about the economy – an unscheduled update would be a signal in its own right. For these reasons, the best approach is a hybrid: a fixed calendar that anchors expectations, supplemented by extraordinary updates when the world moves sharply.
A different perspective comes from the literature on so-called “global games”. This is a branch of economics that studies how our actions depend not just on what we know, but on what we think others will do — and what they think we will do, and so on. The classic example is Keynes’s beauty contest: judges are incentivised not to pick the contestant they personally find most attractive, but the one they expect most other judges to choose.
In these settings, public signals take on outsized importance because everyone knows that everyone else has seen them. This highlights a cost to releasing public information. When a forecast is published, it becomes a focal point: even if it is noisy, it can be overweighted relative to private signals, leading to excessive coordination. In financial markets, that can amplify herding and volatility; in fiscal policy, it could mean investors placing too much weight on the OBR’s outlook relative to their own.
The implication is that more frequent publication is not always better: it risks making investors and policymakers put too much weight on a sequence of potentially noisy updates, destabilising rather than stabilising expectations. But this literature also suggests that the value of public signals is likely to be state-dependent. When private information is poor or scattered — for example, when markets are uncertain about the fiscal outlook — a clear public signal can be especially useful in anchoring expectations.
So, to summarise: one perspective says forecasts should be updated when there is significant news; the other warns that each update can have disproportionate effects on behaviour. Together, they suggest that the frequency question cannot be separated from the quality and context of the forecasts themselves.
How Often is there Material News in the OBR Forecast?
To get a sense of the information value of the OBR’s forecasts, I looked at every forecast it has produced since it was established in 2010. For each one, I take the forecast for the deficit and the debt-to-GDP ratio one year ahead, and then compare how these change over time — both between forecasts six months apart and forecasts a year apart.
The results show that the OBR’s forecasts often contain significant news. On average, the one-year-ahead deficit forecast has shifted by around 1 percentage point of GDP between successive six-monthly forecasts, and debt forecasts by nearly 4 percentage points. Excluding the pandemic years reduces these figures but still leaves meaningful revisions.
If the OBR moved to publishing just once a year, the revisions would be larger still: almost 2 percentage points for the deficit and more than 6 percentage points for debt (1 and 4 points respectively, excluding Covid). In other words, the six-monthly cycle has consistently provided substantial new information. It’s not that the forecasts are “noisy” — rather, news accumulates. Cutting back to annual forecasts would mean that when the OBR does speak, the news would be even bigger.
What Then are the Implications of Moving to One OBR Forecast Per Year?
Based on both the literature and the evidence on the scale of forecast news, the case for reducing the OBR’s output to just one forecast a year is weak.
First, it would mean less public information. Bond markets, rating agencies, and independent analysts will continue to produce their own numbers, and borrowing costs will reflect them. Scaling back the OBR does not make the underlying fiscal sustainability problem go away.
Second, there is a risk of negative signalling. Investors could interpret a cut in frequency as a step away from transparency and discipline, just when credibility matters most. The global-games literature reinforces this concern: in times of uncertainty, credible public forecasts are especially valuable in anchoring beliefs. That makes now — with fiscal sustainability under intense scrutiny — the worst possible time to reduce the flow of official information.
If the Chancellor’s concern is that each OBR forecast creates pressure to tweak policy in response to small changes in the outlook, the more durable answer is not to reduce the number of forecasts but to build greater headroom against the fiscal rules. That way, forecasts can shift without forcing disruptive policy changes.
Perhaps a useful analogy is with medical check-ups. Moving from two to one a year may feel less stressful, but it doesn’t make the underlying health risks disappear — it just means problems are spotted later, and when they are, the eventual treatment is more painful. The better cure is not fewer check-ups but healthier habits. For the public finances, that means building resilience via more headroom, not reducing scrutiny.
https://niesr.ac.uk/blog/chancellor-right-move-one-obr-forecast-year
OPEC, generally more optimistic in its reports, expects global oil demand to increase by 1.3 million barrels a day in 2025 and by another 1.4 million in 2026. File | Photo Credit: Reuters
Saudi Arabia, Russia and six other members of OPEC+ on Sunday (October 5, 2025) decided to raise their production quotas by 137,000 barrels per day in November, as they continue to push for greater market share.
“In view of a steady global economic outlook and current healthy market fundamentals, as reflected in the low oil inventories, the eight participating countries decided to implement a production adjustment of 137 thousand barrels per day,” from October’s levels, the group said in a statement after an on-line meeting.
The increase was less than many analysts expected, with the cartel seeking to avoid pressuring prices amid weak demand.
“OPEC+8 stepped carefully after witnessing how nervous the market had become” in light of market rumours that production could be hiked by 500,000 barrels a day, said Jorge Leon, analyst at Rystad Energy.
“The group is walking a tightrope between maintaining stability and clawing back market share in a surplus environment,” he added.
In the past few months, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Oman and Algeria have already raised their quotas by more than 2.5 million barrels a day.
OPEC+’s priority at the start of the year was to maintain prices high by limiting supply, but it changed strategy starting in April and is now seeking to gain market share from other producers such as the United States, Brazil, Canada, Guyana and Argentina.
The production increases come as the International Energy Agency forecasts that oil demand will only increase by 700,000 barrels a day between 2025 and 2026.
OPEC, generally more optimistic in its reports, expects global oil demand to increase by 1.3 million barrels a day in 2025 and by another 1.4 million in 2026.
A barrel of Brent, the global benchmark for crude, was trading below $65 on Friday (October 3, 2025), down about 8% in one week, weighed down by fears of a significant production increase by the cartel.
Russia, the largest producer in the cartel after Saudi Arabia, depends on high prices to finance its war machine against Ukraine, but unlike Riyadh, has limited potential to increase production due to U.S. and European pressure on its oil sector.
The increase decided on Sunday (October 5, 2025) is “manageable” for Russia, said Mr. Leon.
Russia currently produces around 9.25 million barrels per day and has a maximum production capacity of 9.45 million compared to around 10 million before the war, Homayoun Falakshahi, an analyst at Kpler, told AFP.
Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries have intensified since August, causing “an increase in Russian crude oil exports, as it cannot be used domestically,” making the country even more dependent on selling oil abroad, Arne Lohmann Rasmussen, an analyst at Global Risk Management, told AFP.
By Alex Kimani - Oct 05, 2025, 6:00 PM CDT
A couple of years ago, a cross-section of Wall Street was highly bullish on the community solar sector, with some predicting that it was poised to become the most prevalent model of residential solar power distribution in the United States. First unveiled about two decades ago, community solar entails a small-scale solar model wherein customers purchase shares in a new solar farm in their service area, developers build the project then subscribers receive credits that cut their utility bills by ~10%. Community solar offers a viable solution to the roughly half of American households that are unable to install rooftop solar due to factors like roof shading, issues with property ownership or specific regulations. Further, these solar projects tend to offer friendlier contract terms for people with lower credit scores.
Unfortunately, the community solar boom could be over before it has even properly begun. A fresh report by global data, research, and consulting services provider, WoodMackenzie, has revealed that U.S. community solar installations dropped 36% year over year in the first half of the current year, with just 437 MW installed, thanks to Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. OBBBA gutted key tax incentives for clean energy projects, with the bill’s impact expected to get worse as the years roll on. WoodMac is now decidedly bearish on the sector, and expects community solar installations to contract 12% annually through 2030. Total U.S. community solar installations clocked in at 9.1 GW at the end of June 2025, and are projected to exceed 16 GW by 2030. Wood Mackenzie does not see much upside in the sector, and has predicted that installations could exceed the forecast figure by 1.3 GW on favorable state policy while further tax credit complications could lower the outlook by 1.2 GW.
“The final bill offers a crucial four-year window for projects already under development to come online and secure the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), supporting near-term buildout,” Caitlin Connelly, senior analyst at Wood Mackenzie, told PV Magazine. “As of mid-2025, there are over 9 GW of community solar projects under development, with over 1.4 GW known to be under construction,” she added.
Wood Mackenzie has attributed this year’s big decline to falling volumes in New York and in Maine, after the former program was recently overhauled. New York alone is expected to contribute nearly 30% of the U.S. decline in community solar installations in 2025. The analysts have noted that Massachusetts, Maryland and New Jersey are also facing similar problems as they transition between program iterations, adding that multiple states have generally struggled to pass new legislation.
Solar Stocks Shine
Nevertheless, solar stocks have been defying the bearish sentiment pervading the clean energy sector. Back in July, U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’, rolling back many clean energy credits enacted by former President Joe Biden under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. As widely expected, OBBBA is far from beautiful for various industries within the solar and wind energy sectors. However, the solar sector has continued to outperform, thanks in large part to robust U.S. and global solar demand as well as specific provisions within the OBBBA that favor solar manufacturing in the United States. The solar sector’s favorite benchmark, Invesco Solar ETF (NYSEARCA:TAN), has comfortably outpaced its oil and gas peers, returning 40.5% in the year-to-date compared to 4.2% return by the oil and gas benchmark, the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (NYSEARCA:XLE), and 14.8% gain by the S&P 500.
OBBBA favors solar manufacturing through provisions that incentivize domestic production and streamline the tax credit process, while also setting deadlines for construction and placement in service of solar projects. Specifically, it maintains and clarifies the tax credits for solar projects under Sections 48E and 45Y, while also phasing them out for wind and solar projects placed in service after December 31, 2027, unless construction began within 12 months of the Act's enactment.
First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR) is one of the companies heavily favored by OBBBA, with the stock up 33.6% YTD. UBS recently reiterated its Buy rating and hiked its price target on FSLR to $275 from $255, saying the company will receive a significant boost to the bottomline from OBBBA credits. According to UBS, the present value of 45X tax credits for the company is worth $75 per share, while the company is expected to grow net cash to $25 per share by the second quarter of 2026. UBS says its PT is conservative, pointing out that it did not factor in extra earnings when First Solar’s finishing factory comes online. First Solar's 3.5 GW per year manufacturing facility in Louisiana is expected to be commissioned in the second half of 2025. This facility is part of First Solar's broader strategy to scale its American manufacturing footprint to over 10 gigawatts (GW) by 2025, according to Made in Alabama. The Louisiana factory, along with a new facility in Alabama, is are key component of this expansion.
Israel-based SolarEdge (NASDAQ: SEDG) leads the sector with YTD returns of 172.4%. Regarding regulatory changes under OBBBA, SolarEdge CEO Shuki Nir says the company’s multi-year strategy of onshoring manufacturing to the U.S. will help it preserve 45X advanced manufacturing credits over the next 7 years.
Meanwhile, some residential solar companies are also defying bearish projections. California-based residential solar company Sunrun (NASDAQ:RUN) has surged 107.8% YTD thanks to the company’s robust cost efficiencies as well as a record 70% storage attachment rate in its latest quarter. Sunrun installed a record 392 MWh of storage capacity during the second quarter, good for a 48% Y/Y increase, while solar capacity installations clocked in at 227 MW, up 18% Y/Y. Meanwhile, subscriber additions grew 15%, bringing the company’s total subscribers to 941,701 as of June 30.
Indonesia | Publication | September 2025
1 Government policy objectives
In response to the United Nations’ 21st Conference of the Parties (COP-21) in 2015, Indonesia enacted Law No. 16 of 2016 on the Ratification of the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In its 2022 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) document, Indonesia has targeted the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 31.89% by 2030 through domestic measures or by 43.2% with international support. The government also plans to gradually replace fossil fuels by shifting to renewable energy, with a long-term goal of achieving net zero by 2060.
Indonesia’s state-owned electricity utility, PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Persero) (PLN), issued the new Electricity Supply Business Plan (Rencana Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik or RUPTL) in May 2025. The RUPTL relates to the period 2025-2034 and sets out plans in relation to the construction of new generation assets with capacity of 69.5 GW, of which 42.6 GW would come from renewable energy sources and an additional 10.3 GW of energy storage (battery energy storage system (BESS) and pumped storage). 73% of new capacity is reserved for independent power producers (IPPs), including a majority of the renewable energy projects.
Indonesia renewable energy briefing
Of the renewable energy projects, the greatest volume has been reserved for solar (17.1 GW), followed by hydro (11.7 GW), wind (7.2 GW), geothermal (5.2 GW), bioenergy (0.9 GW) and nuclear (0.5 GW). The majority of the renewable energy projects are targeted for development in the 2030 – 2034 period. The RUPTL specifies the expected geographical spread of the renewable projects. For example, the majority of the solar capacity proposed has been allocated to Java, Madura and Bali. The remaining capacity is divided evenly between Sumatra, Kalimantan and Maluku, Papua and East Nusa Tenggara. The geographical spread of proposed capacity tends to reflect solar irradiation potential, rather than suitability of the transmission facilities. In some regions, there is limited transmission infrastructure, while other areas suffer from transmission congestion.
Addressing baseload requirements and the need to balance intermittent renewable energy capacity, PLN targets additional thermal generation capacity of 16.6 GW, for development during the 2025-2029 period, as well as new transmission lines and substations of 47,758 kms and 107,950 MVA respectively during the next ten years.
PLN is keen to support electrification for industrial use, including downstream processing industries. PLN may fast track projects outside of the RUPTL that serve national strategic projects or other strategic industries (subject to ministerial approval).
2 Phase out of coal-fired power generation
Presidential Regulation No.112 of 2022 on the Acceleration of Renewable Energy Development for the Supply of Electricity (PR 112/2022) was promulgated in September 2022 and established a roadmap for the retirement of coal-fired power projects (CFPPs) and the expansion of renewable energy sources. PR 112/2022 prohibits the development of new CFPPs unless they meet the conditions set out below:
1. the project was stipulated in the RUPTL prior to PR 112/2022; or
2. the project fulfils the following conditions:
As such, PR 112/2022 preserves the ability for certain industrial players to utilise captive CFPPs to support industries such as nickel refining, which is a significant user of coal-fired generation.
PR 112/2022 does not address the early retirement of existing CFPPs. As yet, there is no specific schedule for CFPP retirement, in part due to the lack of legal framework to retire IPPs that are under long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with PLN, as well as funding shortfalls. Nevertheless, the early retirement of the first CFPP, the Cirebon 1 660 MW project, is proposed in 2035, five years ahead of the scheduled end of the PPA term. This was enabled through financial support from the Asian Development Bank.
In light of the above, PLN’s latest RUPTL sends a mixed message. The latest RUPTL contemplates the development of 6.3 GW of new CFPPs, mainly consisting of mine-mouth projects. PLN proposes that these are developed in the 2025 – 2029 period. Of the 6.3 GW, 2.3 GW are already in development. The new CFPPs are excluded from the partial moratorium provided under PR 112/2022 on the basis that they are considered necessary to support the grid and other strategic industries (i.e., they fall within the second condition referred to above). The Indonesian government further justifies the new CFPPs on the basis that mitigation strategies will be employed, including the development of solar and BESS projects in Sumatra and Kalimantan in proximity to the new CFPPs. The CFPPs are also expected to utilise technological solutions to mitigate emissions and increase efficiency, including co-firing with biomass or ammonia and, in the longer term, carbon capture and storage technology.
3 Procurement process
Indonesia favours an auction process with a tariff ceiling. Projects are procured under differing methods, according to the renewable energy source/technology. These are explained below.
Direct selection – this applies to hydro, solar, wind, biomass, biogas and tidal projects. Under this procurement method, pre-qualified participants are invited to bid against the capacity and technical requirements of the projects being procured by PLN. The pre-qualified participants must have previously registered and fulfilled the requirements to be listed on PLN’s lists of selected providers (daftar penyedia terseleksi – DPT). Tenders are based on a capacity quota and competitive pricing against a ceiling price, which is determined based on the technology, capacity and location factor of the relevant project.
Direct appointment - this applies to:
1. hydro projects utilising water from government owned reservoirs or irrigation canals;
2. geothermal projects;
3. expansion projects for geothermal, hydro, solar, wind, biomass and biogas projects; and
4. excess power from geothermal, hydro, biomass and biogas projects.
Under this procurement method, PLN engages directly with the applicable IPP and the tariff is subject to agreement between the parties. In practice, PLN generally references the applicable ceiling prices or the average cost of generation on the relevant local grid (known as the biaya pokok penyediaan pembangkitan - BPP).
The RUPTL indicates that certain hydro projects and floating solar projects might be developed through the public private partnership (PPP) scheme under Presidential Regulation 38 of 2015 on Cooperation between Government and Business Entities in Procurement of Infrastructure.
4 PLN equity participation
Since 2017 many projects procured by PLN have involved equity participation by PLN’s subsidiaries, PLN Indonesia Power, PLN Nusantara Power and PLN Nusantara Renewables, including the Java 9 & 10 coal-fired project and the Cirata floating solar project.
These PLN partnership arrangements arise in one of the following two ways:
Mandatory partnership: the tender for the project specifies that a PLN subsidiary will take a minority ownership interest in the project. In practice, this is typically in the range of 15 – 35%.
Cooperation partner: PLN or its subsidiary acts as a “cooperation partner” taking an equity interest in the project company of 51%1.
The market has generally viewed these projects as being less attractive than 100% privately owned IPPs. In part this is due to the drag on the potential return on investment for the non-PLN shareholders as the PLN subsidiary does not contribute equity upfront or its contribution is capped. Generally, the PLN subsidiary’s share of equity is loaned by the remaining shareholders, which is repaid by the PLN subsidiary through its share of dividends from the project company.
Further, the participation of PLN’s subsidiary in the transaction tends to cause delay and increase transactional costs due to the additional structuring required, as discussed below.
Where PLN or its subsidiaries act as a cooperation partner, careful structuring has been necessary to ensure the project’s bankability. Key aspects include:
Decision making: all shareholder decisions are structured so that they fall within the joint control of the PLN subsidiaries and the independent investor. i.e., unanimous consent is required.
Conflicts of interest: directors or commissioners appointed by the PLN shareholder are excluded from decision making on matters where they have a conflict of interest, including enforcement of rights against PLN under the PPA for the project.
World Bank Negative Pledge: the government of Indonesia and PLN are borrowers from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). The terms of their loans include a negative pledge that provides that public assets may not be secured for the benefit of third parties unless IBRD is granted pari passu security. The concern is that the assets of the project company could be construed as public assets and therefore restricted from being secured in favour of project lenders, if the project company is controlled by a PLN subsidiary. This can be managed with careful structuring of the corporate governance of the project company, including joint control, as discussed above.
Claims against PLN: PLN undertakes that it will ensure that its subsidiary shareholder will comply with its obligations under the shareholders’ agreement and articles of association of the project company. This provides the independent investor with a contractual claim against PLN if its subsidiary breaches the joint control provisions.
5 Power Purchase Agreements
In March 2025 the government of Indonesia issued Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR) Regulation No. 5 of 2025 on Guidelines for Power Purchase Agreements from Power Plants Utilizing Renewable Energy Sources (MEMR 5/2025). This sets out a specific set of guidelines that apply to the PPAs for the offtake of power by PLN from renewable energy projects (solar PV, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass, biogas, biofuel, tidal and waste-to-energy, with or without BESS). MEMR 5/2025 applies to projects that did not yet have a signed PPA when it was issued, including projects that are currently in the tender process before the submission of proposals.
Largely, MEMR 5/2025 codifies the precedent provisions that have developed in recent years under Indonesian PPAs that have been financed. However, the drafting of the regulation contains ambiguities, leaving some doubt as to how PLN will approach future PPA negotiations. MEMR 5/2025 establishes guidelines and, in theory, PLN and developers are free to contract out of these guidelines. In practice, however, we expect PLN to take a conservative approach, which might limit the extent to which PLN is willing to derogate from the guidelines set out in MEMR 5/2025. For now, it is a matter of wait and see until PLN issues a revised model PPA for use in the procurement process.
Key aspects of MEMR 5/2025 include:
Project structure: build, own, operate (BOO), build, own, operate, transfer (BOOT) and other development and operating schemes are permitted. BOO and BOOT are the structures most likely to be adopted, which is consistent with current market practice.
PPA term: PPAs may have a maximum term of 30 years, with the possibility of an extension of the term by agreement. The extension of the term may apply if the project company has suffered force majeure during the initial term of the PPA or, more widely, if it is in the economic interests of both parties.
Take or pay: MEMR 5/2025 generally refers to PLN’s obligation to purchase electricity. It is, however, not clear what this will mean in practice. We would generally expect intermittent energy sources to be subject to an energy-based tariff (with a guaranteed level of offtake – “contracted energy”) and non-intermittent projects to be subject to capacity payments. MEMR 5/2025 refers to availability factors, which suggests that a capacity payment structure might still be available for appropriate projects (e.g., hydro projects with a reservoir).
Grid failure: Under MEMR 5/2025 it is unclear how much grid related risk is borne by PLN. Ordinarily, we would expect PLN to bear the risk of grid failure (including force majeure affecting the grid), subject to limited cure periods for carrying out repairs. However, under MEMR 5/2025, PLN’s risk appears to be limited to “emergency conditions” and it is relieved of liability where PLN is unable to absorb electricity due to force majeure. It is possible that the language in MEMR 5/2025 is not fully indicative of the intended position and time will tell whether PLN will maintain the position generally accepted prior to the issuance of MEMR 5/2025.
Deemed commissioning and dispatch: MEMR 5/2025 sets out events that give rise to deemed dispatch payments, such as PLN's curtailment for maintenance or an emergency situation. However, the regulation states that PLN will not be obliged to pay for deemed commissioning or deemed dispatch if there is a force majeure event affecting PLN or the grid more broadly (which is contrary to the generally accepted precedent). MEMR 5/2025 allows PLN and developers to agree the events that give rise to deemed dispatch and deemed commissioning in each PPA, which we hope will enable PLN to agree broader deemed commissioning and deemed dispatch events that are consistent with previously financed PPAs.
Performance penalties: Under MEMR 5/2025 project companies may be liable for performance related penalties based on availability factor, contracted energy, performance ratio or other technical criteria specified in the PPA. Whilst the regulation is unclear about which mechanism applies to a particular project, based on prior practice, we expect that the mechanism for applying performance related liquidated damages will vary based on the technology employed and will be adjusted for the renewable energy resource. We would also expect the performance related damages to be capped. One helpful change introduced by MEMR 5/2025 is that penalties for run of river hydro, solar, wind and tidal projects are assessed annually, rather than monthly as per previous practice.
CF Industries, Nutrien, and Mosaic are the three Fertilizer stocks to watch today, according to MarketBeat’s stock screener tool. Fertilizer stocks are shares of publicly traded companies that manufacture or distribute plant nutrients—primarily nitrogen, phosphate and potash—used to boost crop yields. These equities give investors exposure to the agricultural sector and tend to be driven by global food demand, commodity prices and input costs (notably natural gas). Because they’re cyclical, fertilizer stocks often fluctuate with planting seasons, weather patterns and related government trade or environmental policies. These companies had the highest dollar trading volume of any Fertilizer stocks within the last several days.
CF Industries (CF)
CF Industries Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the manufacture and sale of hydrogen and nitrogen products for energy, fertilizer, emissions abatement, and other industrial activities in North America, Europe, and internationally. It operates through Ammonia, Granular Urea, UAN, AN, and Other segments.
Nutrien (NTR)
Nutrien Ltd. provides crop inputs and services. The company operates through four segments: Retail, Potash, Nitrogen, and Phosphate. The Retail segment distributes crop nutrients, crop protection products, seeds, and merchandise products. The Potash segment provides granular and standard potash products.
Mosaic (MOS)
The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients in North America and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and Mosaic Fertilizantes. It owns and operates mines, which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients, such as diammonium phosphate, monoammonium phosphate, and ammoniated phosphate products; and phosphate-based animal feed ingredients primarily under the Biofos and Nexfos brand names, as well as produces a double sulfate of potash magnesia product under K-Mag brand name.
https://www.defenseworld.net/2025/10/05/promising-fertilizer-stocks-worth-watching-october-3rd.html
Corn is loaded onto a truck as harvest continues on the Warpup Farms in Warren, Ind., Thursday, Sept. 11, 2025.
American farmers are having a tough year, in no small part because of President Donald Trump’s trade war. Now, the White House is gearing up to extend them a multi-billion-dollar bailout, sources tell CNN.
Surging costs and foreign retaliation from tariffs have hurt the US agriculture industry — as have immigration-related labor shortages and plummeting commodity prices. Farm production expenses are estimated to reach $467.4 billion in 2025, according to the Agriculture Department, up $12 billion from last year.
Farm bankruptcies rose in the first half of the year to the highest level since 2021, according to US courts data.
Trump’s policies have exacerbated those woes, from the deportation of the industry’s key migrant workforce to renewed trade tensions between the United States and China. And for traditional American crops, such as soybeans, the situation has grown particularly precarious.
“There’s no doubt that the farm economy is in a significant challenge right now, especially our row croppers,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told reporters Tuesday. “So not just soybeans, although I think they’re probably the top of the list, but corn, wheat, sorghum, cotton, et cetera.”
Indeed, the US soybean industry has become the poster child of the farm economy’s plight in the first year of Trump’s second term. The president recognizes these problems, White House officials tells CNN, and has increased pressure on his administration to address them urgently.
Over the past few weeks, the White House has held a series of interagency meetings with the Departments of Agriculture and Treasury as they attempt to finalize a relief package for US farmers, the sources said. Discussions over the best way to aid the agriculture industry are ongoing, the officials said, but they have zeroed in on two options.
“There are a lot of levers we can use to help ease the pain they are feeling,” one of the officials told CNN. One idea, floated publicly by Trump as recently as Wednesday, is to give farmers a percentage of the income the United States is receiving from the administration’s tariffs on goods being imported into the country.
“We’ve made so much money on Tariffs, that we are going to take a small portion of that money, and help our Farmers. I WILL NEVER LET OUR FARMERS DOWN!” Trump wrote on social media this week. The other is tapping into a “slush fund,” as the officials described it, at the Department of Agriculture.
The Trump administration also dipped into the fund, known as Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP), in March to similarly provide assistance to farmers. USDA at the time issued $10 billion in direct payments to eligible agricultural producers of eligible commodities for the 2024 crop year.
The administration has also discussed implementing a combination of the two, depending on where they can most quickly pull the funds from, one White House official said. The current range of aid they are looking to offer ranges from $10 billion to $14 billion.
“The final figure will depend on how much farmers need and the amount of tariff revenue coming in,” the official told CNN.
Trump himself as privately been applying pressure on his team to ensure that American farmers, many of whom the Trump administration credit for helping the president win the November 2024 election, are protected. But the other reason they are making the agriculture industry such a priority, officials say, is because the Trump administration views protecting farmers as a national security issue.
“We need to grow our own food. We can’t rely on imports from other countries, that poses a problem for national security. And right now, the government is subsidizing a lot of that process,” one Trump administration official argued.
US soybean industry in crisis
An issue complicating the Trump administration’s goals revolve around soybeans — America’s largest agricultural export, valued at more than $24 billion in 2024, according to USDA data.
Last year, about half of those exports went to China, but since May, that’s dropped down to zero as a result of an effective embargo China has placed on US soybeans in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs on the country. China has implemented 20% tariffs on US soybeans, making the crop from other countries significantly more attractive.
That couldn’t come at worse time for soybean farmers, with the harvest season in full swing and some farms reporting strong yields. And their luck might not change anytime soon, with Beijing ramping up its reliance on South America — inadvertently aided the US Treasury’s financial lifeline provided to Argentina in recent weeks.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/05/business/farmer-bailout-trump-tariffs
On October 6, the price of gold exceeded $3,900 per ounce for the first time in history. This was a consequence of increased demand for safe-haven assets due to the weakening Japanese yen, the US government shutdown, and expectations of a Fed interest rate cut.
On Monday, October 6, the price of gold for the first time in history exceeded the mark of $3900 per ounce, which was a consequence of a sharp increase in demand for safe assets. Uncertainty prevails in the market due to the weakening of the Japanese yen, the suspension of the US government, and expectations of a new interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve System. This was reported by Reuters, writes UNN.
Details
As of 02:08 GMT, the spot price of gold rose by 1.1% to $3929.91 per ounce, while December futures in the US rose by 1.2% to $3954.70. As KCM Trade chief market analyst Tim Waterer noted, "the weakness of the yen amid the Japanese LDP elections left investors with one less safe asset to turn to, and gold was able to capitalize on that."
According to Waterer, with the expected Fed rate cuts, gold remains a key capital protection tool.
A prolonged US government shutdown means that a cloud of uncertainty and potential impact on GDP still hangs over the country's economy - the expert emphasized.
Since the beginning of 2025, the value of gold has already increased by 49%, after a 27% rise in 2024. This is facilitated by active purchases by central banks, increased demand for gold-backed ETFs, a weakening dollar, and interest from retail investors looking for a reliable hedge against geopolitical risks.
The growth was further boosted by the Fed's announcement last month of another 0.25% rate cut, which made gold more attractive during a period of low interest rates.
Earlier, in March, the spot price first exceeded $3000, and in September – $3700. Against this background, analysts and brokers are increasingly confident in predicting a further increase in the value of gold to new historical highs.
Recall
According to fintech expert and co-founder of Concord Fintech Solutions Olena Sosiedka, the trend of rising gold prices is reinforced by the unstable geopolitical situation in the world.
Wars, trade conflicts, unpredictable decisions of world leaders – all this creates an atmosphere of constant instability, in which gold becomes a universal insurance. So the jump in the value of gold is not just a financial event, it is a marker of investor confidence in the modern economy. And for the fintech market, this is a clear signal: technology can make finance more convenient, but the basis of trust is always built on simple and understandable values - summarized Olena Sosiedka.
She noted that the current rise in gold prices is just the tip of the iceberg, because at the global level it indicates investors' preparation for a weakening dollar. The depreciation of the American currency makes gold more accessible to buyers in international markets, which, in turn, increases demand and stimulates further price growth.
The main drivers of stable demand for gold remain central banks, primarily China and Russia. They are actively increasing their gold reserves, effectively implementing a de-dollarization strategy and demonstrating a desire to reduce dependence on the American currency.
https://unn.ua/en/news/gold-price-exceeds-dollar3900-per-ounce-for-the-first-time-in-history
SOUTH African authorities are mulling a 25% levy on raw chrome ore exports as part of efforts to rescue the beleaguered ferrochrome sector, which has haemorrhaged jobs amid crippling electricity costs, said Business Times on Sunday.
A draft economic growth strategy proposes the export duty to maintain lower domestic chrome prices whilst calling for preferential power tariffs for ferrochrome producers. The framework targets 3.5% economic expansion and increased investment in fixed assets by 2030, the newspaper said.
South Africa has over 70% of global chromite reserves, the primary ingredient in ferrochrome, which is essential for stainless steel manufacturing. However, above inflation electricity cost increases have forced major producers to close smelters, threatening up to 250,000 positions.
Approximately 14 smelter closures in recent years have eliminated 350,000 jobs throughout the ferrochrome supply chain. Glencore recently announced redundancies at facilities it operates with Merafe Resources, affecting sites in Rustenburg, said Business Times.
Cabinet approved an export tariff earlier this month without specifying the rate, alongside new permit requirements administered by the International Trade Administration Commission.
Chrome ore miners have condemned the proposal as counterproductive. Chrome SA, representing companies including Sibanye-Stillwater and Tharisa, argued that export restrictions would damage already marginal operations whilst failing to address electricity affordability, the newspaper said in its report. Last year’s chrome ore exports earned R84bn in foreign currency, it said.
Conversely, Menar managing director Vuslat Bayoglu championed the tax, calculating that a 25% levy could raise R34bn annually based on current prices and export volumes, providing ample funding for smelter electricity relief.
The Ferro Alloy Producers Association remained ambivalent, prioritising action against illegal mining, which accounts for roughly 10% of chrome exports. Chairman Nellis Bester emphasised that competitive electricity tariffs represented the only viable solution, noting just eight of 80 furnaces remain operational.
Recent negotiations between Electricity Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, Glencore, Samancor and Eskom yielded no resolution, said Business Times.
https://www.miningmx.com/top-story/62637-south-africa-weighs-25-chrome-export-levy-report/
Swedish company SSAB has successfully produced steel with almost zero carbon emissions, becoming the world’s first steel producer to meet the strict thresholds set by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the First Mover Coalition (FMC). This was announced in a statement by the company.
The announcement of this achievement was made at the end of September at the annual GE Vernova wind energy industry supplier conference.
SSAB Zero steel is produced from iron reduced with hydrogen using HYBRIT technology. The product is intended for end users such as the automotive, mining, agriculture, construction, heavy equipment, transportation, and energy industries.
This product is commercially available and is manufactured at the company’s US plant in Montpelier, Iowa, using recycled scrap, fossil-free electricity, biochar, and renewable natural gas. By adding hydrogen-reduced iron to the production process, this steel now meets IEA requirements.
SSAB Zero steel will be used in GE Vernova wind towers throughout the United States. Both companies are members of the FMC.
In September this year, SSAB announced the official start of construction of a new green steel mill in Luleå. It will replace the existing blast furnace production and will have an annual capacity of 2.5 million tons. The plant will be equipped with two electric furnaces, an advanced secondary metallurgy system, an integrated hot rolling mill, and a cold rolling complex.
https://gmk.center/en/news/ssab-zero-steel-meets-iea-carbon-thresholds/amp/
