Solar, wind industries head to Washington

Income Graduated Fixed Charge aligns CPUC billing with utility fixed costs, lowers usage rates, supports electrification, and shifts California investor-owned utilities' electric bills by income, with CARE and Climate Credit offsets for low-income households.

Key Points

A CPUC proposal: an income-based monthly fixed fee with lower usage rates to align costs and aid low-income customers.

✅ Income-tiered fixed fees: $0-$42; CARE: $14-$22, by utility territory

✅ Usage rates drop 16%-22% to support electrification and cost-reflective billing

✅ Lowest-income save ~$10-$20; some higher earners pay ~$10+ more monthly

The Public Advocates Office (PAO) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed adding a monthly income-based fixed charge on electric utility bills based on income level.  

The rate change is designed to lower bills for the lowest-income residents while aligning billing more directly with utility costs. 

PAO’s recommendation for the Income Graduated Fixed Charge places fees between $22 and $42 per month in the three major investor-owned utilities’ territories, including an SDG&E minimum charge debate under way, for customers not enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program. As seen below, CARE customers would be charged between $14 per month and $22 a month, depending on income level and territory.

For households earning $50,000 or less per year, the fixed charge would be $0, but only if the California Climate Credit is applied to offset the fixed cost.

Meanwhile, usage-based electricity rates are lowered in the PAO proposal, part of major changes to electric bills statewide. Average rates would be reduced between 16% to 22% for the three major investor-owned utilities.

The lowest-income bracket of Californians is expected to save roughly $10 to $20 a month under the proposal, while middle-income customers may see costs rise by about $20 a month, even as lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in Sacramento.

“We anticipate the vast majority of low-income customers ($50,000 or less per year) will have their monthly bills decrease by $10 or more, and a small proportion of the highest income earners ($100,000+ per year) will see their monthly bills rise by $10 or more,” said the PAO.

The charges are an effort to help suppress ever-increasing electricity generation and transmission rates, which are among the highest in the country, with soaring electricity prices reported across California. Rates are expected to rise sharply as wildfire mitigation efforts are implemented by the utilities found at fault for their origin.

“We are very concerned. However, we do not see the increases stopping at this point,” Linda Serizawa, deputy director for energy, PAO, told pv magazine. “We think the pace and scale of the [rate] increases is growing faster than we would have anticipated for several years now.”

Consumer advocates and regulators face calls for action on surging electricity bills across the state.

The proposed changes are also meant to more directly couple billing with the fixed charges that utilities incur, as California considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid. For example, activities like power line maintenance, energy efficiency programs, and wildfire prevention are not expected to vary with usage, so these activities would be funded through a fixed charge.

Michael Campbell of the PAO’s customer programs team, and leader of the proposed program, likened paying for grid enhancements and other social programs with utility rate increases to “paying for food stamps by taxing food.” Instead, a fixed charge would cover these costs.

PAO said the move to lower rates for usage should help encourage electrification as California moves to replace heating and cooling, appliances, and gas combustion cars with electrified counterparts. In addition, lower rates mean the cost burden of running these devices is improved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Nuclear Power Dispute strains electricity market reform as Germany resists state aid for French reactors, while Eon urges cooperation to meet the energy transition, low-carbon goals, renewables integration, and cross-border power trade.

Key Points

A policy standoff between Germany and France over nuclear energy's role, state aid, and electricity market reforms.

✅ Germany opposes state aid for existing French nuclear plants.

✅ Eon CEO urges compromise to advance market reform and decarbonization.

✅ Cross-border trade shows reliance on French nuclear amid renewables push.

Germany should stop trying to impose its views on nuclear power on the rest of the EU, the head of one of Europe’s largest utilities has warned, as he stressed its importance in the region’s clean energy transition.

Leonhard Birnbaum, chief executive of German energy provider Eon, said Berlin should accept differences of opinion as he signalled his desire for a compromise with France to break a deadlock amid a nuclear power dispute over energy reforms.

Germany this year shut down its final three nuclear power plants as it followed through on a long-held promise to drop the use of the energy source, effectively turning its back on nuclear for now, while France has made it a priority to modernise its nuclear power plants.

The differences are delaying reforms to the region’s electricity market and legislation designed to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets.

One sticking point is Germany’s refusal to back French moves to allow governments to provide state aid to existing power plants, which could enable Paris to support the French nuclear fleet.

The Eon chief, whose company has 48mn customers across Europe, said it would be “better for everyone” if the two countries could approach the dispute with the mindset that “everyone does their part”, even as Germany has at times weighed a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout in recent debates.

“Neither the French will be able to persuade us to use nuclear power, nor we will be able to persuade them not to. That’s why I think we should take a different approach to the discussion,” he added.

Birnbaum said Germany “would do well to be a bit cautious about trying to impose our way on everyone else”. This approach was unlikely to be “crowned with success”.

“The better solution will not come from opposing each other, but from working together.”

Birnbaum made the comments at a press conference announcing Eon’s second-quarter results.

The company raised its profit outlook, predicting adjusted net income of €2.7bn to €2.9bn, and promised to reduce bills for customers as it hailed “diminishing headwinds” following the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.

Birnbaum, whose company owned one of the three German nuclear plants shut down this year, pointed out that French nuclear energy was helping the conversion to a system of renewable energy in Germany at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power just when it needs energy.

This was a reference to Europe’s shared power market that allows countries to buy and sell electricity from one another. 

Germany has been a net importer of French electricity since shutting down its own nuclear plants, which last month prompted the French energy minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher to accuse Berlin of hypocrisy. 

“It’s a contradiction to massively import French nuclear energy while rejecting every piece of EU legislation that recognises the value of nuclear as a low-carbon energy source,” Pannier-Runacher told the German business daily Handelsblatt.

She also criticised Berlin’s drive to use new gas-fired power plants as a “bridge” to its target of being carbon neutral by 2045, even as some German officials contend that nuclear won’t solve the gas issue in the near term, arguing that it created a “credibility problem” for Germany: “Gas is a fossil fuel.”

Berlin officials responded by pointing out that Germany was a net exporter of electricity to France over the winter when its nuclear power stations were struggling to produce because of maintenance problems. 

They added that the country only imported French power because it was cheaper, not because their country was suffering shortages.

Berlin argues that renewable energy is cleaner and safer than nuclear, despite renewable rollout challenges linked to cheap Russian gas and grid expansion, and accuses France of seeking to protect the interests of its nuclear industry.

In Paris, officials see Germany’s resistance to nuclear energy as wrong-headed given the need to fight climate change effectively, and worry it is an attempt to undercut a key aspect of French industrial competitiveness.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Firefighter Cancer Risks: lithium-ion battery fires, toxic metals like nickel and chromium, hazardous smoke plumes, and prolonged exposure threaten first responders; SCBA use, decontamination, and evidence-based protocols help reduce occupational health impacts.

Key Points

Health hazards from EV battery fires exposing responders to toxic metals and smoke, elevating long-term cancer risk.

✅ Nickel and chromium in EV smoke linked to lung and sinus cancers

✅ Use SCBA, on-scene decon, and post-incident cleaning to cut exposure

✅ Adopt EV fire SOPs: cooling, monitoring, isolation, air monitoring

As electric vehicles (EVs) become more popular, the EV fire risks to firefighters are becoming an increasing concern. These fires, fueled by the high-capacity lithium-ion batteries in EVs, produce dangerous chemical exposures that could have serious long-term health implications for first responders.

Claudine Buzzo, a firefighter and cancer survivor, knows firsthand the dangers that come with the profession. She’s faced personal health battles, including rare pancreatic cancer and breast cancer, both of which she attributes to the hazards of firefighting. Now, as EV adoption increases and some research links adoption to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local communities, Buzzo and her colleagues are concerned about how EV fires might add to their already heavy exposure to harmful chemicals.

The fire risks associated with EVs are different from those of traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez, who is leading a study at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, explains that the high concentrations of metals released in the smoke from an EV fire are linked to various cancers. For instance, nickel, a key component in EV batteries, is associated with lung, nasal, and laryngeal cancers, while chromium, another metal found in some EV batteries, is linked to lung and sinus cancers.

Research from the Firefighter Cancer Initiative indicates that the plume of smoke from an EV fire contains significantly higher concentrations of these metals than fires from traditional vehicles. This raises the risk of long-term health problems for firefighters who respond to such incidents.

While the Electric Vehicle Association acknowledges the risks associated with various types of vehicle fires, they maintain that the lithium-ion batteries in EVs may not present a significantly higher risk than other common fire hazards, even as broader assessments suggest EVs are not a silver bullet for climate goals. Nonetheless, the growing body of research is causing concern among health experts, urging for further studies into how these new types of fires could affect firefighter health and how upstream electricity generation, where 18% of electricity in 2019 came from fossil fuels in Canada, factors into overall risk perceptions.

Fire departments and health researchers are working to understand the full scope of these risks and are emphasizing the importance of protective gear, such as self-contained breathing apparatuses, to minimize exposure during EV fire responses, while also considering questions like grid impacts during charging operations and EV sustainability improvements in different regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ukraine Electricity Imports surge to record levels as EU neighbors bolster grid stability amid Russian strikes, supporting energy security, preventing blackouts, and straining cross-border transmission capacity while Ukraine rebuilds damaged infrastructure and diversifies with renewables.

Key Points

Emergency EU power purchases stabilizing Ukraine’s grid after war damage.

✅ Record 19,000 MWh per day from EU interconnectors

✅ Supports grid stability and blackout prevention

✅ Cost and transmission upgrades challenge sustainability

Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine has extended far beyond the battlefield, with critical infrastructure becoming a target. Ukraine's once-robust energy system has sustained significant damage amid energy ceasefire violations and Russian missile and drone strikes. To cope with these disruptions and maintain power supplies for Ukrainian citizens, the country is turning to record-breaking electricity imports from neighboring European nations.

Prior to the war, Ukraine enjoyed a self-sufficient energy sector, even exporting electricity to neighboring countries. However, targeted attacks on power plants and transmission lines have crippled generation capacity. The situation is particularly dire in eastern and southern Ukraine, where ongoing fighting has caused extensive damage.

Faced with this energy crisis, Ukraine is looking to Europe for a lifeline. The country's energy ministry has announced plans to import a staggering amount of electricity – exceeding 19,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per day – to prepare for winter and stabilize supplies. This surpasses the previous record set in March 2024 and represents a significant increase in Ukraine's reliance on external power sources.

Several European nations are stepping up to support Ukraine. Countries like Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, which maintains quiet energy ties with Russia today, and Moldova have agreed to provide emergency electricity supplies. These imports will help stabilize Ukraine's power grid and prevent widespread blackouts, especially during peak consumption hours.

The reliance on imports, however, presents its own set of challenges. Firstly, the sheer volume of electricity needed puts a strain on the capacity of neighboring grids. Upgrading and expanding transmission infrastructure will be crucial to ensure a smooth flow of electricity. Secondly, the cost of imported electricity can be higher than domestically generated power amid price hikes and instability globally, placing additional pressure on Ukraine's already strained finances.

Beyond these immediate concerns, the long-term implications of relying on external energy sources need to be considered. Ukraine's long-term goal is to rebuild its own energy infrastructure and regain energy independence. International assistance, including energy security support measures, will be crucial in this endeavor. Financial aid and technical expertise can help Ukraine repair damaged power plants, diversify its energy mix through further investment in renewables, and develop more resilient grid infrastructure.

The war in Ukraine has underscored the importance of energy security. A nation's dependence on a single source of energy, be it domestic or foreign, leaves it vulnerable to disruption, as others consider national security and fossil fuels in their own policies. For Ukraine, diversification and building a more resilient energy infrastructure are key takeaways from this crisis.

The international community also has a role to play. Supporting Ukraine's energy sector not only helps the nation weather the current crisis but also strengthens European energy security as a whole, where concerns over Europe's energy nightmare remain pronounced. A stable and independent Ukraine, less reliant on Russian energy, contributes to a more secure and prosperous Europe.

As the war in Ukraine continues, the battle for energy security rages on. While the immediate focus is on keeping the lights on through imports, the long-term goal for Ukraine is to rebuild a stronger, more resilient energy sector that can power the nation's future. The international community's support will be crucial in helping Ukraine achieve this goal.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro pandemic electricity trends reveal weekend-like energy consumption patterns: later morning demand, earlier evenings, more cooking, streaming on smart TVs, and work-from-home routines, with tips to conserve using laptops and small appliances.

Key Points

Weekend-like shifts in power demand from work-from-home routines: later mornings, earlier evenings, and more streaming.

✅ Later morning electricity demand; earlier evening peaks

✅ More cooking and baking; increased streaming after dinner

✅ Conservation tips: laptops, small appliances, smart TVs

The latest report on electricity usage in British Columbia reveals the COVID-19 pandemic has created an atmosphere where every day feels like a Saturday, a pattern also reflected in BC electricity demand during peak seasons.

BC Hydro says overall power usage hasn't changed much, but similar Ontario electricity demand shifts suggest regional differences, while Manitoba demand fell more noticeably, and a survey of 500 people shows daily routines have shifted dramatically since mid-March when pandemic-related closures began.

The hydro report says, with nearly 40 per cent of B.C. residents working from home, trends in residential electricity use confirm almost half are sleeping in and eating breakfast later, while about a quarter say they are showering less.

Those patterns more closely resemble what hydro says is typical weekend power consumption, and could influence time-of-use rates as electricity demand occurs later in the morning and earlier in the evening.

The report also finds many people are cooking and baking more than before the pandemic, preparing the evening meal earlier, streaming or viewing more television after dinner even as Ottawa's electricity consumption dipped earlier in the pandemic, and 80 per cent are going to bed later.

Although electricity use is normal for this time of year, hydro says homebound residents can conserve by using laptops instead of desktops, small appliances such as Instant Pots instead of ovens, and streaming movies or TV shows on a smart televisions instead of game consoles, even as Hydro One peak rates continue to shape consumption patterns elsewhere.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News