Allegheny Power moves forward with Transmission HQ

EV Decarbonization Strategy weighs life-cycle emissions and climate targets, highlighting mode shift to public transit, cycling, and walking, grid decarbonization, renewable energy, and charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gases while reducing private car dependence.

Key Points

A plan to cut transport emissions by pairing EV adoption with mode shift, clean power, and less private car use.

✅ Prioritize mode shift: transit, cycling, and walking.

✅ Electrify remaining vehicles with clean, renewable power.

✅ Expand charging, improve batteries, and manage critical minerals.

California recently announced that it plans to ban the sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a move similar to a 2035 electric vehicle mandate seen elsewhere, Ontario has invested $500 million in the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and Tesla is quickly becoming the world's highest-valued car company.

It almost seems like owning an electric vehicle is a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it isn't, as a U of T study explains today. What we should also be focused on is whether anyone should use a private vehicle at all.
 
As a researcher in sustainable mobility, I know this answer is unsatisfying. But this is where my latest research has led.

Battery EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3 - the best selling EV in Canada in 2020 - have no tailpipe emissions. But they do have higher production and manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, and often run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels.

Almost 18 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada came from fossil fuels in 2019, and even as Canada's EV goals grow more ambitious today, the grid mix varies from zero in Quebec to 90 per cent in Alberta.
 
Researchers like me compare the greenhouse gas emissions of an alternative vehicle, such as an EV, with those of a conventional vehicle over a vehicle lifetime, an exercise known as a life-cycle assessment. For example, a Tesla Model 3 compared with a Toyota Corolla can provide up to 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled in Quebec, but no reductions in Alberta.

Hundreds of millions of new cars

To avoid extreme and irreversible impacts on ecosystems, communities and the overall global economy, we must keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C - and ideally 1.5 C - above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.

We can translate these climate change targets into actionable plans. First, we estimate greenhouse gas emissions budgets using energy and climate models for each sector of the economy and for each country. Then we simulate future emissions, taking alternative technologies into account, as well as future potential economic and societal developments.

I looked at the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, which adds up to about 260 million vehicles, while noting the potential for Canada-U.S. collaboration in this transition, to answer a simple question: Could the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector be brought in line with climate targets by replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs?

The results were shocking. Assuming no changes to travel behaviours and a decarbonization of 80 per cent of electricity, meeting a 2 C target could require up to 300 million EVs, or 90 per cent of the projected U.S. fleet, by 2050. That would require all new purchased vehicles to be electric from 2035 onwards.

To put that into perspective, there are currently 880,000 EVs in the U.S., or 0.3 per cent of the fleet. Even the most optimistic projections, despite hype about an electric-car revolution gaining steam, from the International Energy Agency suggest that the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent electrified by 2050.

Massive and rapid electrification

Still, 90 per cent is theoretically possible, isn't it? Probably, but is it desirable?

In order to hit that target, we'd need to very rapidly overcome all the challenges associated with EV adoption, such as range anxiety, the higher purchase cost and availability of charging infrastructure.
 
A rapid pace of electrification would severely challenge the electricity infrastructure and the supply chain of many critical materials for the batteries, such as lithium, manganese and cobalt. It would require vast capacity of renewable energy sources and transmission lines, widespread charging infrastructure, a co-ordination between two historically distinct sectors (electricity and transportation systems) and rapid innovations in electric battery technologies. I am not saying it's impossible, but I believe it's unlikely.

Read more: There aren't enough batteries to electrify all cars - focus on trucks and buses instead

So what? Shall we give up, accept our collective fate and stop our efforts at electrification?

On the contrary, I think we should re-examine our priorities and dare to ask an even more critical question: Do we need that many vehicles on the road?

Buses, trains and bikes

Simply put, there are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger transport: avoid the need to travel, shift the transportation modes or improve the technologies. EVs only tackle one side of the problem, the technological one.

And while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, including leading electric bus fleets in North America, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

If we truly want to solve our climate problems, we need to deploy EVs along with other measures, such as public transit and active mobility. This fact is critical, especially given the recent decreases in public transit ridership in the U.S., mostly due to increasing vehicle ownership, low gasoline prices and the advent of ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft)

Governments need to massively invest in public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure to make them larger, safer and more reliable, rather than expanding EV subsidies alone. And we need to reassess our transportation needs and priorities.

The road to decarbonization is long and winding. But if we are willing to get out of our cars and take a shortcut through the forest, we might get there a lot faster.

Author: Alexandre Milovanoff - Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Marine Energy and Climate Resilience can counter sea level rise and storm surge with tidal power, subsea turbines, heat pumps, and flood barriers, delivering renewable electricity, stability, and coastal protection for the United Kingdom.

Key Points

Integrated use of tidal power, barriers, and heat pumps to curb sea level rise, manage storms, and green the UK grid.

✅ Tidal bridges and subsea turbines enhance baseload renewables

✅ Integrated barriers cut storm surge and river flood risk

✅ Heat pumps and marine heat networks decarbonize coastal cities

IN concentrating on electrically driven cars, the UK’s new ten-point energy plans, and recent UK net zero policies, ignores the elephant in the room.

It fails to address the forecast six-metre sea level rise from global warming rapidly melting the Greenland ice sheet.

Rising sea levels and storm surge, combined with increasingly heavy rainfall swelling our rivers, threaten not only hundreds of coastal communities but also much unprotected strategic infrastructure, including electricity systems that need greater resilience.

New nuclear power stations proposed in this United Kingdom plan would produce radioactive waste requiring thousands of years to safely decay.

This is hardly the solution for the Green Energy future, or the broader global energy transition, that our overlooked marine energy resource could provide.

Sea defences and barrier design, built and integrated with subsea turbines and heat pumps, can deliver marine-driven heat and power to offset the costs, not only of new Thames Barriers, but also future Severn, Forth and other barrages, while reducing reliance on high-GWP gases such as SF6 in switchgear across the grid.

At the Pentland Firth, existing marine turbine power could be enhanced by turbines deployed from new tidal bridges to provide much of UK’s electricity needs, as nations chart an electricity future that replaces fossil fuels, from its estimated 60 gigawatt capability.

Energy from Bluemull Sound could likewise be harvested and exported or used to enhance development around UK’s new space station at Unst.

The 2021 Climate Change Summit gives Glasgow the platform to secure Scotland’s place in a true green, marine energy future and help build an electric planet for the long term.

We must not waste this opportunity.

THERE is no vaccine for climate change.

It is, of course, wonderful news that such progress is being made in the development of Covid-19 vaccines but there is a risk that, no matter how serious the Covid crisis is, it is distracting attention, political will and resources from the climate crisis, a much longer term and more devastating catastrophe.

They are intertwined. As climate and ecological systems change, vectors and pathogens migrate and disease spreads.

What lessons can be learned from one to apply to the other?

Prevention is better than cure. We need to urgently address the climate crisis, charting a path to net zero electricity by the middle of the century, to help prevent future pandemics.

We are only as safe as the most vulnerable. Covid immunisation will protect the most vulnerable; to protect against the effects of climate change we need to look far more deeply. Global challenges require systemic change.

Neither Covid or climate change respect national borders and, for both, we need to value and trust science and the scientific experts and separate them from political posturing.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

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