Ottawa invests in Bear Mountain Wind Park

COVID-19 Energy Burden drives higher electricity bills as income falls, intensifying energy poverty, utility shut-offs, and affordability risks for low-income households; policy moratoriums, bill relief, and efficiency upgrades are vital responses.

Key Points

The COVID-19 energy burden is the rising share of income spent on energy as bills increase and earnings decline.

✅ Rising home demand and lost wages increase energy cost share.

✅ Mandated shut-off moratoriums and reconnections protect health.

✅ Fund assistance, efficiency, and solar for LMI households.

I have asthma. It’s a private piece of medical information that I don’t normally share with people, but it makes the potential risks associated with exposure to the coronavirus all the more dangerous for me. But I’m not alone. 107 million people in the U.S. have pre-existing medical conditions like asthma and heart disease; the same pre-existing conditions that elevate their risk of facing a life-threatening situation were we to contract COVID-19. There are, however, tens of millions more house-bound Americans with a condition that is likely to be exacerbated by COVID-19: The energy burden.

The energy burden is a different kind of pre-existing condition:
In the last four weeks, 22 million people filed for unemployment. Millions of people will not have steady income (or the healthcare tied to it) to pay rent and utility bills for the foreseeable future which means that thousands, possibly millions of home-bound Americans will struggle to pay for energy.

Your energy burden is the amount of your monthly income that goes to paying for energy, like your monthly electric bill. So, when household energy use increases or income decreases, your energy burden rises. The energy burden is not a symptom of the pandemic and the economic downturn; it is more like a pre-existing condition for many Americans.

Before the coronavirus outbreak, I shared a few maps that showed how expensive electricity is for some. The energy burden in most pronounced in places already struggling economically, like in Appalachia, where residents in some counties must put more than 30 percent of their income toward their electric bills, and in the Midwest where states such as Michigan have some families spending more than 1/5 of their income on energy bills. The tragic facts are that US families living below the poverty line are far more likely to also be suffering from their energy burden.

But like other pre-existing conditions, the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic are exacerbating the underlying problems afflicting communities across the country.

Critical responses to minimize the spread of COVID-19 are social distancing, washing hands frequently, covering our faces with masks and staying at home. More time at home for most will drive up energy bills, and not by a little. Estimates on how much electricity demand during COVID-19 will increase vary but I’ve seen estimates as high as a 20% increase on average. For some families that’s a bag of groceries or a refill on prescription medication.

What happens when the power gets turned off?
Under normal conditions, if you cannot pay your electric bill your electricity can get turned off. This can have devastating consequences. Most states have protections for health and medical reasons and some states have protections during extreme heat or cold weather. But enforcement of those protections can vary by utility service area and place unnecessary burdens on the customer.

UCS
Only Florida has no protections of any kind against utility shut-offs when health or medical reasons would merit protection against it. However, when it comes to protection against extreme heat, only a few states have mandatory protections based on temperature thresholds.

The NAACP has also pointed out that utilities have unceremoniously disconnected the power of millions of people, disproportionally African-American and Latinx households.

April tends to be a mild month for most of the country, but the South already had its first heat wave at the end of March. If this pandemic lasts into the summer, utility disconnects could become deadly, and efforts to prevent summer power outages will be even more critical to public health. In the summer, during extreme summer heat families can’t turn off the A/C and go to the movies if we are following public health measures and sheltering in place. Lots of families that don’t have or can’t afford to run A/C would otherwise gather at local community pools, beaches, or in cooling centers, but with parks, pools and community groups closed to prevent the virus’s spread, what will happen to these families in July or August?

But we won’t have to wait till the summer to see how families will be hard hit by falling behind on bills and losing power. Here are a few ways electricity disconnection policies cause people harm during the pandemic:

Loss of electricity during the COVID-19 pandemic means families will lose their ability to refrigerate essential food supplies.
Child abuse guidance discusses how unsanitary household conditions are a contributing factor to child protective services involvement. Unsanitary household conditions can include, for example, rotting food (which might happen if electricity is cut off).

HUD’s handbook on federally subsidized housing includes a chapter on termination, which says that lease agreements can be terminated for repeated minor infractions including failing to pay utilities.
Airway machines used to treat respiratory ailments—pre-existing conditions in this pandemic—will not work. Our elderly neighbors in particular might rely on medicine that requires refrigeration or medical equipment that requires electricity. They too have fallen victim to utility shut-offs even during the pandemic.

Empowering solutions are available today

Decisionmakers seeking solutions can look to implement utility shut off moratoriums as a good start. Good news is that many utilities have voluntarily taken action to that effect, and New Jersey and New York have suspended shut-offs, one of the best trackers on who is taking what action has been assembled by Energy Policy Institute.

But voluntary actions do not always provide comprehensive protection, and they certainly have not been universally adopted across the country. Some utilities are waiving fees as relief measures, and some moratoriums only apply to customers directly affected by COVID-19, which will place additional onerous red tape on households that are stricken and perhaps unable to access testing. Others might only be an extension of standard medical shut off protections. Moratoriums put in place by voluntary action can also be revoked or lifted by voluntary action, which does not provide any sense of certainty to people struggling to make ends meet.

This is why the US needs mandatory moratoriums on all utility disconnections. These normally would be rendered at the state level, either by a regulatory commission, legislative act, or even an emergency executive order. But the inconsistent leadership among states in response to the COVID-19 crisis suggests that Congressional action is needed to ensure that all vulnerable utility customers are protected. That’s exactly what a coalition of organizations, including UCS, is calling for in future federal aid legislation. UCS has called for a national moratorium on utility shut-offs.

And let’s be clear, preventing new shut-offs isn’t enough. Cutting power off at residence during a pandemic is not good public policy. People who are without electricity should have it restored so residents can safely shelter in place and help flatten the curve. So far, only Colorado and Wisconsin’s leadership has taken this option.

Addressing the root causes of energy poverty
Preventing shut-offs is a good first step, but the increased bill charges will nevertheless place greater economic pressure on an incalculable number of families. Addressing the root of the problem (energy affordability) must be prioritized when we begin to recover from the health and economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One way policymakers can do that is to forgive outstanding balances on utility bills, perhaps with an eligibility cap based on income. Additional funds could be made available to those who are still struggling to pay their bills via capping bills, waiving late payment fees, automating payment plans or other protective measures that rightfully place consumers (particularly vulnerable consumers) at the center of any energy-related COVID-19 response. Low-and-moderate-income energy efficiency and solar programs should be funded as much as practically possible.

New infrastructure, particularly new construction that is slated for public housing, subsidized housing, or housing specifically marketed for low- and moderate-income families, should include smart thermostats, better insulation, and energy-efficient appliances.

Implementing these solutions may seem daunting, let us not forget that one of the best ways to ease people’s energy burden is to keep a utility’s overall energy costs low. That means state utility commissions must be vigilant in utility rate cases and fuel recovery cost dockets to protect people facing unfathomable economic pressures. Unscrupulous utilities have been known to hide unnecessary costs in our energy bills. Commissions and their staff are overwhelmed at this time, but they should be applying extra scrutiny during proceedings when utilities are recovering costs associated with delivering energy.

What might a utility try to get past the commission?
Well, residential demand is up, so for many people, bills will increase. However, wholesale electricity rates are low right now, in some cases at all-time lows. Why? Because industrial and commercial demand reductions (from social distancing at home) have more than offset residential demand increases. Overall US electricity demand is flat or declining, and supply/demand economics predicts that when demand decreases, prices decrease.

At the same time, natural gas prices have set record lows each month of this year and that’s a trend that is expected to hold true for a while.

Low demand plus low gas prices mean wholesale market prices are incredibly low. Utilities should be taking advantage of low market prices to ensure that they deliver electricity to customers at as low a cost as possible. Utilities must also NOT over-run coal plants uneconomically or lean on aging capacity despite disruptions in coal and nuclear that can invite brownouts because that will not only needlessly cost customers more, but it will also increase air pollution which will exacerbate respiratory issues and susceptibility to COVID-19, according to a recent study published by Harvard.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

China Coal-Fired Power Consolidation targets capacity cuts through mergers, SASAC-led restructuring, debt reduction, asset optimization, and retiring inefficient plants across state-owned utilities to improve efficiency, stabilize liabilities, and align with energy transition policies.

Key Points

A SASAC-driven plan merging utility assets to cut coal capacity, reduce debt, and retire outdated, loss-making plants.

✅ Merge five central utilities' coal assets to streamline operations

✅ Target 25-33% capacity cuts and >50% loss reduction by 2021

✅ Prioritize debt-ridden regions: Gansu, Shaanxi, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Ningxia

China plans to slash coal-fired power capacity at its five biggest utilities by as much as a third in two years by merging their assets, amid broader power-sector strains that reverberate globally, according to a document seen by Reuters and four sources with knowledge of the matter.

The move to shed older and less-efficient capacity is being driven by pressure to cut heavy debt levels at the utilities. China, is, however, building more coal-fired power plants and approving dozens of new mines to bolster a slowing economy, even as recent power cuts highlight grid imbalances.

The five utilities, which are controlled by the central government, accounted for around 44% of China’s total coal-fired power capacity at the end of 2018, a share likely to be tested by rising electrification goals, with electricity to meet 60% by 2060 according to industry forecasts.

“(The utilities) will strive to reduce coal-fired power capacity by one quarter to one third ...cutting total losses by more than 50% from the current level to achieve a significant decline in debt-to-asset ratios by the end of 2021,” the document said.

The plan, initiated and overseen by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC), follows heavy losses at some of the utilities, amid a pandemic-era demand drop that hit industrial consumption.

Some of their coal-fired power stations have filed for bankruptcy in recent years as Beijing promotes the use of renewable energy and advances its nuclear program while opening up the state-controlled power market.

The SASAC did not immediately respond to a fax seeking comment and the sources declined to be identified as they were not authorised to speak to the media.

The utilities - China Huaneng Group Co, China Datang Corp, China Huadian Corp, State Power Investment Corp and China Energy Group - did not respond to faxes requesting comment.

Together, they had 474 coal-fired power plants with combined power generation capacity of 520 gigawatts (GW) at the end of last year.

Their coal-fired power assets came to 1.5 trillion yuan ($213 billion) while total coal-fired power liabilities were 1.1 trillion yuan, the document said.

The document was seen by two people at two of the utilities and was also verified by a source at SASAC and a government researcher.

It was not clear when the document was published but it said the merging and elimination of outdated capacity would start from 2019 and be achieved within three years, aiming to improve the efficiency and operations at the companies, reflecting a broader electricity sector mystery that policymakers are trying to resolve.

Utilities with debt-ridden operations in the northwestern regions of Gansu, Shaanxi, Xinjiang, Qinghai and Ningxia would be the first to carry out the plan, it said, even as India ration coal supplies during demand surges.

The government researcher said the SASAC has been researching possible consolidation in the coal-fired power sector since 2017, but added: “It’s easier said than done.”

“No one is willing to hand in their high quality assets and there is no point in merging the bad assets,” the government researcher said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.

Key Points

Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.

Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.

Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.

Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.

$10B more than initial estimate
On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.

Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.

But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.

And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.

Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.

Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.

Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.

Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.

The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.

“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy. 

There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.

A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.

Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.

Cost of cancelling the project
The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.

That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.

A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation. 

The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.

“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.

"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.

"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."

The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.

Arguments against Site C
While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.

In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.

"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.

"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.

"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."

Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.

“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”

Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.

At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.

“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.

She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.

Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.

They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.

In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake." 

According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.

Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.

The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement. 

Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.

Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.

One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Israel Electricity Reform Competition opens the supply segment to private suppliers, challenges IEC price controls, and promises consumer choice, marginal discounts, and market liberalization amid natural gas generation and infrastructure remaining with IEC.

Key Points

Policy opening 40% of supply to private vendors, enabling consumer choice and small discounts while IEC retains the grid.

✅ 40% of retail supply opened to private electricity suppliers

✅ IEC keeps meters, lines; tariffs still regulated by the authority

✅ Expected discounts near 7%, not dramatic price cuts initially

"See the pseudo-reform in the electricity sector: no lower prices, no opening the market to competition, and no choice of electricity suppliers, with a high rate for consumers despite natural gas." This is an advertisement by the Private Power Producers Forum that is appearing everywhere: Facebook, the Internet, billboards, and the press.

Is it possible that the biggest reform in the economy with a cost estimated by Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) (TASE: ELEC.B22) at NIS 7 billion is really a pseudo-reform? In contrast to the assertions by the private electricity producers, who are supposedly worried about our wallets and want to bring down the cost of electricity for us, the reform will open a segment of electricity supply to competition, as agreed in the final discussions about the reform. No less than 40% of this segment will be removed from IEC's exclusive responsibility and pass to private hands.

This means that in the not-too-distant future, one million households in Israel will be able to choose between different electricity suppliers. IEC will retain the infrastructure, with its meter and power lines, but for the first time, the supplier who sends the monthly bill to our home can be a private concern.

Up until now, the only regulatory agency determining the electricity rate in Israel was the Public Utilities Authority (electricity), i.e. the state. Now, in the framework of the reform, as a result of opening the supply segment to competition, private electricity producers will be able to offer a lower rate than IEC's, with mechanisms like electricity auctions shown to cut costs in some markets, while IEC's rate will still be controlled by the Public Utilities Authority (electricity).

This situation differs from the situation in almost all European countries, where the electricity market is fully open to competition and the EU is pursuing an electricity market revamp to address pricing challenges, with no electricity price controls and free switching by consumers between electricity producers, just as in the mobile phone market. This measure has not lowered electricity prices in Europe, where rates are higher than in Israel, which is in the bottom third of OECD countries in its electricity rate.

Regardless of reports, supply will be opened to competition and we will be able to choose between electricity suppliers in the future. Are the private electricity producers nevertheless right when they say that the electricity sector will not be opened to "real competition"?

What is obviously necessary is for the private producers to offer a substantially lower rate than IEC in order to attract as many new customers as possible and win their trust. Can the private producers offer a significantly lower rate than IEC? The answer is no, at least not in the near future. The teams handling the negotiations are aware of this. "The private supplier's price will not be significantly cheaper than IEC's controlled price; there will be marginal discounts," a senior government source explains. "What is involved here is another electricity intermediary, so it will not contribute to competition and lowering the price," he added.

There are already private electricity producers supplying electricity to large business customers - factories, shopping malls, and so forth - at a 7% discount. The rest of the electricity that they produce is sold to the system manager. When supply is opened to competition, it can be assumed that the private suppliers will also be able to offer a similar discount to private consumers.

Will a 7% discount cause a home consumer to leave reliable and familiar IEC for a private producer, given evidence from retail electricity competition in other markets? This is hard to know.

#google#

Why cannot private electricity producers offer a larger discount that will really break the monopoly, as their advertisement says they want to do? Chen Herzog, chief economist and partner at BDO Consulting, which is advising the Private Power Producers Forum, says, "Competition in supply requires the construction of competitive power plants that can compete and offer cheaper electricity.

"The power plants that IEC will sell in the reform, which will go on selling electricity to IEC, are outmoded, inefficient, and non-competitive. In addition, the producer will have to continue employing IEC workers in the purchased plants for at least five years. The producer will generate electricity in IEC power stations with IEC employees and additional overhead of a private producer, with factors such as cost allocation further shaping end-user rates. This amounts to being an IEC subcontractor in production. There is no saving on costs, so there will be no surplus to deduct from the consumer price," he adds.

The idea of opening supply to electricity market competition on such a large scale sounds promising, but saving on electricity for consumers still looks a long way off.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Europe EV Sales Slowdown signals waning incentives, economic uncertainty, and supply chain constraints, threatening climate targets and net-zero emissions goals while highlighting the need for charging infrastructure, affordable batteries, and policy support across key markets.

Key Points

Europe's early-2024 EV registrations fell as incentives waned and supply gaps persisted, putting climate targets at risk.

✅ Fewer subsidies and tax breaks cut EV affordability

✅ Inflation and recession fears dampen car purchases

✅ Supply-chain and lithium constraints limit availability

A recent slowdown in Europe's electric vehicle (EV) sales raises serious concerns about the region's ability to achieve its ambitious climate targets.  After years of steady growth, new EV registrations declined in key markets like Norway, Germany, and the U.K. in early 2024. Experts are warning that this slump jeopardizes the transition away from fossil fuels and could undermine Europe's commitment to a net-zero emissions future.

Factors Behind the Decline

Several factors are contributing to the slowdown in EV sales:

• Reduced Incentives: Many European countries have scaled back generous subsidies and tax breaks for EV purchases. While these incentives played a crucial role in driving early adoption, their reduction has made EVs less financially attractive for some consumers, with many U.K. buyers citing higher prices even after discounts.
• End of ICE Ban Support: Public support for phasing out gasoline and diesel-powered cars by 2035, a key European Union policy, appears to be waning in some areas. Without robust support for this measure, consumers may be less inclined to embrace the transition to electric vehicles.
• Economic Uncertainty: Rising inflation and fears of a recession in Europe have made consumers hesitant to invest in big-ticket purchases like new cars, regardless of fuel type. This economic uncertainty is impacting both electric and conventional vehicle sales.
• Supply Chain Constraints: Ongoing supply chain disruptions and shortages of raw materials like lithium continue to impact the availability of affordable electric vehicles. This means potential buyers face long wait times or inflated prices even when they're ready to embrace EVs.

Consequences for Europe's Green Agenda

The decline in EV sales threatens Europe's plans to reduce carbon emissions and become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, aligning with a broader push for electricity to address the climate dilemma across Europe. The transportation sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and the rapid electrification of vehicles is a pillar of Europe's decarbonization strategy.

The current slump highlights the need for continued policy support for the EV market, as EVs still trail gas models in many markets today, to ensure long-term growth and affordability for consumers. Without action, experts fear that Europe may find itself locked into a dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come, making its climate targets unreachable.

A Global Concern

Europe is a leader in electric vehicle policies and technology, during a period when global EV sales climbed markedly. The recent slowdown, however, sends a worrying signal to other regions around the world aiming to accelerate their transition to electric vehicles, including the U.S. market's Q1 dip as a cautionary example. It underscores the importance of sustained government support, investment in charging infrastructure and overcoming supply chain challenges to secure a future of widespread electric vehicle use, with many forecasts suggesting mass adoption within a decade if support continues.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

BC Ferries Electrification accelerates zero-emission vessels, Canada Infrastructure Bank financing, and fast charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower operating costs, and reduce noise across British Columbia's Island-class routes.

Key Points

BC Ferries Electrification is the plan to deploy zero-emission ferries and charging, funded by CIB, to reduce emissions.

✅ $75M CIB loan funds four electric ferries and chargers

✅ Cuts 9,000 tonnes CO2e annually on short Island-class routes

✅ Quieter service, lower operating costs, and redeployed hybrids

British Columbia is taking a significant step towards a cleaner transportation future with the electrification of its ferry fleet. BC Ferries, the province's ferry operator, has secured a $75 million loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) to fund the purchase of four zero-emission ferries and the necessary charging infrastructure to support them.

This marks a turning point for BC Ferries, which currently operates a fleet reliant on diesel fuel. The new Island-class electric ferries will be deployed on shorter routes, replacing existing hybrid ships on those routes. These hybrid ferries will then be redeployed on routes that haven't yet been converted to electric, maximizing their lifespan and efficiency.

Environmental Benefits

The transition to electric ferries is expected to deliver significant environmental benefits. The new vessels are projected to eliminate an estimated 9,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually, and electric ships on the B.C. coast already demonstrate similar gains, contributing to British Columbia's ambitious climate goals. Additionally, the quieter operation of electric ferries will create a more pleasant experience for passengers and reduce noise pollution for nearby communities.

Economic Considerations

The CIB loan plays a crucial role in making this project financially viable. The low-interest rate offered by the CIB will help to keep ferry fares more affordable for passengers. Additionally, the long-term operational costs of electric ferries are expected to be lower than those of diesel-powered vessels, providing economic benefits in the long run.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the electrification of BC Ferries is a positive development, there are some challenges to consider. The upfront costs of electric ferries and charging infrastructure are typically higher than those of traditional options, though projects such as the Kootenay Lake ferry show growing readiness. However, advancements in battery technology are constantly lowering costs, making electric ferries a more cost-effective choice over time.

Moreover, the transition presents opportunities for job creation in the clean energy sector, with complementary initiatives like the hydrogen project broadening demand. The development, construction, and maintenance of electric ferries and charging infrastructure will require skilled workers, potentially creating a new avenue for economic growth in British Columbia.

A Pioneering Example

BC Ferries' electrification initiative sets a strong precedent for other ferry operators worldwide, including Washington State Ferries pursuing hybrid-electric upgrades. This project demonstrates the feasibility and economic viability of transitioning to cleaner marine transportation solutions. As battery technology and charging infrastructure continue to develop, we can expect to see more widespread adoption of electric ferries across the globe.

The collaboration between BC Ferries and the CIB paves the way for a greener future for BC's transportation sector, where efforts like Harbour Air's electric aircraft complement marine electrification. With cleaner air, quieter operation, and a positive impact on climate change, this project is a win for the environment, the economy, and British Columbia as a whole.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News