B.C. consumers should pay more for power

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

Remote Work Energy Costs are rising as home offices and telecommuting boost electricity bills; utilities, broadband usage, and COVID-19-driven stay-at-home policies affect productivity, consumption patterns, and household budgets across the U.K. and Europe.

Key Points

Remote Work Energy Costs are increased household electricity and utility expenses from telecommuting and home office use.

✅ WFH shifts energy load from offices to households.

✅ Higher device, lighting, and heating/cooling usage drives bills.

✅ Broadband access gaps limit remote work equity.

Household electricity bills are set to soar, with rising residential electricity use tied to the millions of people now working at home to avoid catching the coronavirus.

Running laptops and other home appliances will cost consumers an extra 52 million pounds ($60 million) each week in the U.K., according to a study from Uswitch, a website that helps consumers compare the energy prices that utilities charge.

For each home-bound household, the pain to the pocketbook may be about 195 pounds per year extra, even as some utilities pursue pandemic cost-cutting to manage financial pressures.

The rise in price for households comes even as overall demand is falling rapidly in Europe, with wide swaths of the economy shut down to keep workers from gathering in one place, and the U.S. grid overseer issuing warnings about potential pandemic impacts on operations.

People stuck at home will plug in computers, lights and appliances when they’d normally be at the office, increasing their consumption.

With the Canadian government declaring a state of emergency due to the coronavirus, companies are enabling work-from-home structures to keep business running and help employees follow social distancing guidelines, and some utilities have even considered housing critical staff on site to maintain operations. However, working remotely has been on the rise for a while.

“The coronavirus is going to be a tipping point. We plodded along at about 10% growth a year for the last 10 years, but I foresee that this is going to really accelerate the trend,” Kate Lister, president of Global Workplace Analytics.

Gallup’s State of the Workplace 2017 study found that 43% of employees work remotely with some frequency. Research indicates that in a five-day workweek, working remotely for two to three days is the most productive. That gives the employee two to three days of meetings, collaboration and interaction, with the opportunity to just focus on the work for the other half of the week.

Remote work seems like a logical precaution for many companies that employ people in the digital economy, even as some federal agencies sparked debate with an EPA telework policy during the pandemic. However, not all Americans have access to the internet at home, and many work in industries that require in-person work.

According to the Pew Research Center, roughly three-quarters of American adults have broadband internet service at home. However, the study found that racial minorities, older adults, rural residents and people with lower levels of education and income are less likely to have broadband service at home. In addition, 1 in 5 American adults access the internet only through their smartphone and do not have traditional broadband access. 

Full-time employees are four times more likely to have remote work options than part-time employees. A typical remote worker is college-educated, at least 45 years old and earns an annual salary of $58,000 while working for a company with more than 100 employees, according to Global Workplace Analytics, and in Canada there is growing interest in electricity-sector careers among younger workers. 

New York, California and other states have enacted strict policies for people to remain at home during the coronavirus pandemic, which could change the future of work, and Canadian provinces such as Saskatchewan have documented how the crisis has reshaped local economies across sectors.

“I don’t think we’ll go back to the same way we used to operate,” Jennifer Christie, chief HR officer at Twitter, told CNBC. “I really don’t.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

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

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Merge five central utilities' coal assets to streamline operations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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 Hydro Trades Electrical Safety addresses electric contact incidents among trade workers, emphasizing power line hazards, overhead lines clearance, the 3 m rule, jobsite planning, and safety training to prevent injuries during spring and summer.

Key Points

BC Hydro Trades Electrical Safety is guidance and training to reduce power-line contact risks for trade workers.

✅ Stay at least 3 m from overhead power lines and equipment

✅ Plan worksites and spot hazards before starting tasks

✅ Use BC Hydro electrical awareness training near electricity

A BC Hydro report finds serious electrical contact incidents are more common among trades workers, and research shows this is partly due to a knowledge gap in the electricity sector in Canada.

Trade workers were involved in more than 60 per cent of electric contact incidents that led to serious injuries over the last three years, according to BC Hydro.

One-in-five trade workers have also either made contact or had a close call with electric equipment.

A recent worksite electrocution case underscores the consequences of contact.

“New research finds many have had a close call with electricity on the job or have witnessed unsafe work near overhead lines or electrical equipment,” BC Hydro staff said in the report.

“A gap in electrical safety knowledge is a contributing factor in most of these incidents.”

Most electrical contact incidents take place in the spring and summer, when trade workers are working outdoors and are working in close proximity to power lines.

BC Hydro offered tips for trades workers who may work closely to possible electrical contact points:

• Look up and down – Observe the site beforehand and plan work so you can avoid contact with power lines
• Stay back – You and your tools should stay at least 3 m away from an overhead power line
• Call for help – If you come across a fallen power line, or a tree branch or object contacts a line—stay back 10 metres and call 911. Never try and move it yourself. If you must work closer than 3 m to a power line at your worksite, call BC Hydro before you begin.
• Learn about the risks – BC Hydro offers in-person and online electrical awareness training, such as arc flash training, for anyone who works near electricity.

The report found that 38 per cent of trades workers who participated in the report said they only feel “somewhat informed” about safety measures around working near electricity and 71 per cent were unable to identify the correct distance they should be away from active power lines or electrical equipment.

BC Hydro said trade workers should participate in its electrical awareness training courses, including arc flash training, to make sure all safety measures are taken.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News