Ontario Electricity Distributor Addresses Copper Theft

Work From Home Energy Consumption is driving higher electricity bills as residential usage rises. Smart meter data, ISO-New-England trends, and COVID-19 telecommuting show stronger power demand and sensitivity to utility rates across regions.

Key Points

Higher household electricity use from telecommuting, shifting load to residences and raising utility bills.

✅ Smart meters show 5-22 percent residential usage increases.

✅ Commercial demand fell as home cooling and IT loads rose.

✅ Utility rates and AC use drive bill spikes during summer.

Don't be surprised if your electric bills are looking higher than usual, with a sizable increase in the amount of power that you have used.

Summer traditionally is a peak period for electricity usage because of folks' need to run fans and air-conditioners to cool their homes or run that pool pump. But the arrival of the coronavirus and people working from home is adding to amount of power people are using.

Under normal conditions, those who work in their employer's offices might not be cooling their homes as much during the middle of the day or using as much electricity for lights and running computers.

For many, that's changed.

Estimates on how much of an increase residential electric customers are seeing as result of working from home vary widely.

ISO-New England, the regional electric grid operator, has seen a 3 percent to 5 percent decrease in commercial and industrial power demand, even as the grid overseer issued pandemic warnings nationally. The expectation is that much of that decrease translates into a corresponding increase in residential electricity usage.

But other estimates put the increase in residential electricity usage much higher. A Washington state company that makes smart electric meters, Itron, estimates that American households are using 5 percent to 10 percent more electricity per month since March, when many people began working from home as part of an effort to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Another smart metering company, Cambridge, Mass.-based Sense, found that average home electricity usage increased 22 percent in April compared to the same period in 2019, a reflection of people using more electricity while they stayed home. Based on its analysis of data from 5,000 homes across 30 states, Sense officials said a typical customer's monthly electric bill increased by between $22 and $25, with a larger increase for consumers in states with higher electricity rates.

Connecticut-specfic data is harder to come by.

Officials with Orange-based United Illuminating declined to provide any customer usage data, though, like others in the power industry, they did acknowledge that residential customers are using more electricity. And the state's other large electric distribution utility, Eversource, was unable to provide any recent data on residential electric usage. The company did tell Connecticut utility regulators there was a 3 percent increase in residential power usage for the week of March 21 compared to the week before.

Over the same time period, Eversource officials saw a 3 percent decrease in power usage by commercial and industrial customers.

Separately, nuclear plant workers raised concerns about pandemic precautions at some facilities, reflecting operational strains.

Alan Behm of Cheshire said he normally uses 597 kilowatt hours of electricity during an average month. But in April of this year, the amount of electricity he used rose by nearly 51 percent.

With many offices closed, the expense of heating, cooking and lighting is being shifted from employer to employee, and some utilities such as Manitoba Hydro have pursued unpaid days off to trim costs during the pandemic. And one remote work expert believes some companies are recognizing the burden those added costs are placing on workers -- and are trying to do something about it.

Technology giant Google announced in late May that it was giving employees who work from home $1,000 allowances to cover equipment costs and other expenses associated with establishing a home office.

Moe Vela, chief transparency officer for the New York City-based computer software company TransparentBusiness, said the move by Google executives is a savvy one.

"Google is very smart to have figured this out," Vela said. "This is what employees want, especially millenials. People are so much happier to be working remotely, getting those two to three hours back per day that some people spend getting to and from work is so much more important than a stipend."

Vela predicted that even after a vaccine is found for the corona virus, one of the key worklife changes is likely to be a broader acceptance of telework and working from home.

Beyond the immediate shifts, more young Canadians would work in electricity if awareness improved, pointing to future talent pipelines.

"I think that's where we're headed," he said. "I think it will make an employer more attractive as they try to attract talent from around the world."

Vela said employers save an average of $11,000 per year for each employee they have working from home.

"It would be a brilliant move if a company were to share some of that amount with employees," he said. "I wouldn't do it if it's going to cause a company to not be there (in business) though."

The idea of a company sharing whatever savings it achieves by having employees work from home wasn't well received by many Connecticut residents who responded to questions posed via social media by Hearst Connecticut Media. More than 100 people responded and an overwhelming number of people spoke out against the idea.

"You are saving on gas and other travel related expenses, so the small increase in your electric bill shouldn't really be a concern," said Kathleen Bennett Charest of Wallingford.

Jim Krupp, also of Wallingford, said, "to suggest that the employers compensate the employees makes as much sense as suggesting that the employees should take a pay cut due to their reduced expenses for travel, day care, and eating lunch at work."

"Employers must still maintain their offices and incur all of the fixed expenses involved, including basic utilities, taxes and insurance," Krupp said. "The cost savings (for employers) that are realized are also offset by increased costs of creating and maintaining IT networks that allow employees to access their work sites from home and the costs of monitoring and managing the work force."

Kiki Nichols Nugent of Cheshire said she was against the idea of an employee trying to get their employer to pay for the increased electricity costs associated with working from home.

"I would not nickle and dime," Nugent said. "If companies are saving on electricity now, maybe employers will give better raises next year."

New Haven resident Chris Smith said he is "just happy to have a job where I am able to telecommute."

"When teleworking becomes more the norm, either now or in the future, we may see increased wages for teleworkers either for the lower cost to the employer or for the increase in productivity it brings," Smith said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions rose in Q2 as electricity and transport pollution increased, despite renewable energy growth. Net zero targets, carbon dioxide equivalent metrics, and land use changes underscore mixed trends in decarbonisation.

Key Points

About 499-500 Mt CO2-e annually, with a 2% quarterly rise led by electricity and transport.

✅ Q2 emissions rose to 127 Mt from 124.4 Mt seasonally adjusted

✅ Electricity sector up to 41.6 Mt; transport added nearly 1 Mt

✅ Land use remains a net sink; renewables expanded capacity

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rose in the June quarter by about 2% as pollution from the electricity sector and transport increased.

Figures released on Tuesday by the Morrison government showed that on a year to year basis, emissions for the 12 months to last June totalled 498.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That tally was down 2.1%, or 10.8m tonnes compared with the same period a year earlier.

However, on a seasonally adjusted quarterly basis, emissions increased to 127m tonnes, or just over 2%, from the 124.4m tonnes reported in the March quarter. For the year to March, emissions totalled 494.2m tonnes, underscoring the pickup in pollution in the more recent quarter even as global coal power declines worldwide.

A stable pollution rate, if not a rising one, is also implied by the government’s release of preliminary figures for the September quarter. They point to 125m tonnes of emissions in trend terms for the July-September months, bringing the year to September total to about 500m tonnes, the latest report said.

The government has made much of Australia “meeting and beating” climate targets. However, the latest statistics show mostly emissions are not in decline despite its pledge ahead of the Glasgow climate summit that the country would hit net zero by 2050, and AEMO says supply can remain uninterrupted as coal phases out over the next three decades.

“Nothing’s happening except for the electricity sector,” said Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate professor at the Australian National University. Once Covid curbs on the economy eased, such as during the current quarter, emission sources such as from transport will show a rise, he predicted.

Falling costs for new wind and solar farms, with the IEA naming solar the cheapest in history worldwide, are pushing coal and gas out of electricity generation, as well as pushing down power prices. In seasonally adjusted terms, though, emissions for that sector rose from 39.7m tonnes the March quarter to 41.6m in the June one.

Most other sectors were steady, with pollution from transport adding almost 1m tonnes in the June quarter.

On an annual basis, a 500m tonnes tally is the lowest since records began in the 1990s, and IEA reported global emissions flatlined in 2019 for context. That lower trajectory, though, is lower due much to the land sector remaining a net sink even as some experts raise questions about the true trends when it comes to land clearing.

According to the government, this sector – known as land use, land-use change and forestry – amounted to a net reduction of emissions of 24.4m tonnes, or almost negative 5% of the national total, in the year to June.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

“The magnitude of this net sink has decreased by 0.6% (0.2 Mt CO2-e) on the previous 12 months due to an increase in emissions from agricultural soils, partially offset by a continuing decline in land clearing emissions,” the latest report said.

For its part, the government also touted the increase of renewable energy, as seen in Canada's electricity progress too, as central to driving emissions lower.

“Since 2017, Australia’s consumption of renewable energy has grown at a compound annual rate of 4.6%, with more than $40bn invested in Australia’s renewable energy sector,” Angus Taylor, the federal energy minister said, while UK net zero policy changes show a different approach. “Last year, Australia deployed new solar and wind at eight times the global per capita average.”

ANU’s Saddler said the main driver had been the 2020 Renewable Energy Target that the Coalition government had cut, and had anyway been implemented “a very considerable time ago”.

Tim Baxter, the Climate Council’s senior researcher, said “the time for leaning on the achievements of others is long since past”.

“We need a federal government willing to step up on emissions reductions and take charge with real policy, not wishlists,” he said, referring to the government’s net zero plan to rely on technologies to cut pollution in pursuit of a sustainable electric planet in practice, some of which don’t exist now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada's First Commercial Electric Flight accelerates sustainable aviation, showcasing electric aircraft, pilot training, battery propulsion, and noise reduction, aligning with net-zero goals and e-aviation innovation across commercial, regional, and training operations.

Key Points

Canada's electric flight advances sustainable aviation, proving e-aircraft viability and pilot training readiness.

✅ Battery-electric propulsion cuts emissions and noise

✅ New curricula prepare pilots for electric systems and procedures

✅ Supports net-zero goals through green aviation infrastructure

Canada, renowned for its vast landscapes and pioneering spirit, has achieved a significant milestone in aviation history with its first commercial electric flight. This groundbreaking achievement marks a pivotal moment in the transition towards sustainable aviation and an aviation revolution for the sector, highlighting Canada's commitment to reducing carbon emissions and embracing innovative technologies.

The inaugural commercial electric flight in Canada not only showcases the capabilities of electric aircraft, with examples like Harbour Air's prototype flight demonstrating feasibility, but also underscores the importance of pilot training in advancing e-aviation. As the aviation industry explores cleaner and greener alternatives to traditional fossil fuel-powered aircraft, pilot training plays a crucial role in preparing aviation professionals for the future of sustainable flight.

Electric aircraft, powered by batteries instead of conventional jet fuel, offer numerous environmental benefits, including lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduced noise pollution, though Canada's 2019 electricity mix still included some fossil generation that can affect lifecycle impacts. These advantages align with Canada's ambitious climate goals and commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. By investing in e-aviation, Canada aims to lead by example in the global effort to decarbonize the aviation sector and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

The success of Canada's first commercial electric flight is a testament to collaborative efforts between industry stakeholders, government support, and technological innovation. Electric aircraft manufacturers have made significant strides in developing reliable and efficient electric propulsion systems, with research investment helping advance prototypes and certification, paving the way for broader adoption of e-aviation across commercial and private sectors.

Pilot training programs tailored for electric aircraft are crucial in ensuring the safe and effective operation of these advanced technologies, as operators target first electric passenger flights across regional routes. Canadian aviation schools and training institutions are at the forefront of integrating e-aviation into their curriculum, equipping future pilots with the skills and knowledge needed to navigate electric aircraft systems and procedures.

Moreover, the introduction of commercial electric flights in Canada opens new opportunities for aviation enthusiasts, environmental advocates, and stakeholders interested in sustainable transportation solutions. The shift towards e-aviation represents a paradigm shift in how air travel is perceived and executed, emphasizing efficiency, environmental stewardship, and technological innovation.

Looking ahead, Canada's role in advancing e-aviation extends beyond pilot training to include research and development, infrastructure investment, and policy support. Collaborative initiatives with industry partners and international counterparts, including Canada-U.S. collaboration on electrification, will be essential in accelerating the adoption of electric aircraft and establishing a robust framework for sustainable aviation practices.

In conclusion, Canada's first commercial electric flight marks a significant milestone in the journey towards sustainable aviation. By pioneering e-aviation through pilot training and technological innovation, Canada sets a precedent for global leadership in reducing carbon emissions and shaping the future of air transportation. As electric aircraft become more prevalent in the skies, Canada's commitment to sustainability and ambitious EV goals at the national level will continue to drive progress towards a cleaner, greener future for aviation worldwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Energy Debate: Nuclear Power and LNG divides British Columbia, as a new survey weighs zero-emission clean energy, hydroelectric capacity, the Site C dam, EV mandates, energy security, rising costs, and blackout risks.

Key Points

A BC-wide debate on power choices balancing nuclear, LNG, hydro, costs, climate goals, EVs, and grid reliability.

✅ Survey: 43% support nuclear, 40% oppose in BC

✅ 55% back LNG expansion, led by Southern BC

✅ Hydro at 90%; Site C adds 1,100 MW by 2025

There is a long-term need to produce more electricity to meet population and economic growth needs and, in particular, create new clean energy sources, with two new BC generating stations recently commissioned contributing to capacity.

Increasingly, in the worldwide discourse on climate change, nuclear power plants are being touted as a zero-emission clean energy source, with Ontario exploring large-scale nuclear to expand capacity, and a key solution towards meeting reduced emissions goals. New technological advancements could make nuclear power far safer than existing plant designs.

When queried on whether British Columbia should support nuclear power for electricity generation, respondents in a new province-wide survey by Research Co. were split, with 43% in favour and 40% against.

Levels of support reached 46% in Metro Vancouver, 41% in the Fraser Valley, 44% in Southern BC, 39% in Northern BC, and 36% on Vancouver Island.

The closest nuclear power plant to BC is the Columbia Generating Station, located in southern Washington State.

The safe use of nuclear power came to the forefront following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster when the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan triggered a large tsunami that damaged the plant’s emergency generators. Japan subsequently shut off many of its nuclear power plants and increased its reliance on fossil fuel imports, but in recent years there has been a policy reversal to restart shuttered nuclear plants to provide the nation with improved energy security.

Over the past decade, Germany has also been undergoing a transition away from nuclear power. But in an effort to replace Russian natural gas, Germany is now using more coal for power generation than ever before in decades, while Ontario’s electricity outlook suggests a shift to a dirtier mix, and it is looking to expand its use of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Last summer, German chancellor Olaf Scholz told the CBC he wants Canada to increase its shipments of LNG gas to Europe. LNG, which is greener compared to coal and oil, is generally seen as a transitionary fuel source for parts of the world that currently depend on heavy polluting fuels for power generation.

When the Research Co. survey asked BC residents whether they support the further development of the province’s LNG industry, including LNG electricity demand that BC Hydro says justifies Site C, 55% of respondents were supportive, while 29% were opposed and 17% undecided.

Support for the expansion of the LNG is highest in Southern BC (67%), followed by the Fraser Valley (56%), Metro Vancouver (also 56%), Northern BC (55%), and Vancouver Island (41%).

A larger proportion of BC residents are against any idea of the provincial government moving to ban the use of natural gas for stoves and heating in new buildings, with 45% opposed and 39% in support.

Significant majorities of BC residents are concerned that energy costs could become too expensive, and a report on coal phase-outs underscores potential cost and effectiveness concerns, with 84% expressing concern for residents and 66% for businesses. As well, 70% are concerned that energy shortages could lead to measures such as rationing and rolling blackouts.

Currently, about 90% of BC’s electricity is produced by hydroelectric dams, but this fluctuates throughout the year — at times, BC imports coal- and gas-generated power from the United States when hydro output is low.

According to BC Hydro’s five-year electrification plan released in September 2021, it is estimated BC has a sufficient supply of clean electricity only by 2030, including the capacity of the Site C dam, which is slated to open in 2025. The $16 billion dam will have an output capacity of 1,100 megawatts or enough power for the equivalent of 450,000 homes.

The provincial government’s strategy for pushing vehicles towards becoming dependent on the electrical grid also necessitates a reliable supply of power, prompting BC Hydro’s first call for power in 15 years to prepare for electrification. Most BC residents support the provincial government’s requirement for all new car and passenger truck sales to be zero-emission by 2035, with 75% supporting the goal and 21% opposed.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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