Coal power likely to be an issue in election

Gulf Power Hurricane Michael Response details rapid power restoration, grid rebuilding, and linemen support across the Florida Panhandle, Panama City, and coastal areas after catastrophic winds, rain, and storm surge damaged transmission lines and substations.

Key Points

Gulf Power's effort to restore electricity after Hurricane Michael, including grid rebuilding and storm recovery.

✅ 3,000+ crews deployed for restoration and rebuilding

✅ Transmission, distribution, and substations severely damaged

✅ Panhandle customers warned of multi-week outages

Less than 24 hours ago, Hurricane Micheal devastated the residents in the Florida Panhandle with its heavy winds, rainfall and storm surge, as reflected in impact numbers across the region.

Gulf Power crews worked quickly through the night to restore power to their customers.

Linemen crews were dispatched from numerous of cities all over the U. S., reflecting FPL's massive Irma response to help those impacted by Hurricane Michael.

According to Jeff Rogers, Gulf Power spokesperson; “This was an unprecedented storm, and our customers will see an unprecedented response from Gulf Power. The destruction we’ve seen so far to this community and our electrical system is devastating — we’re seeing damage across our system, including distribution lines, transmission lines and substations.”

Gulf Power told Channel 3 said they dealt with issues like trees and heavy debris blocking roads from strong winds, and communications down can slow down the rebuilding and restoration process, but Gulf Power said they are prepared for this type of storm devastation.

According to Gulf Power, Hurricane Micheal caused so much damage to Panama City's electrical grid that crews not only had repair the lines, they had to rebuild the electrical system, a scenario similar to a complete rebuild seen after Hurricane Laura in Louisiana.

Gulf Power officials say, "Less than 24 hours after the storm, more than 3,000 storm personnel from around the country arrived in the Panama City area Thursday to begin the restoration and rebuilding process. So far, more than 4,000 customers have been restored on Panama City Beach. Power has been restored to all customers in Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa counties, and it’s expected that customers in Walton County will be restored tonight. But customers in the hardest hit areas should prepare to be without power for weeks, not days in some areas. Initial evaluations by Gulf Power indicate widespread, heavy damage to the electrical system in the Panama City area."

According to Gulf Power, crews have restored power to more than 32,000 Gulf Power customers in the wake of Hurricane Michael, but the work is just beginning for power restoration in the Panama City area.

Rogers said, “We’re heartbroken for our customers and our teammates who live in and near the Panama City area,” said Rogers. “This is the type of storm that changes lives — so aside from restoring power to our customers quickly and safely, our focus in the coming days and weeks will also be to help restore hope to these communities and help give them a sense of normalcy as soon as possible.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

U.S. Energy Transition traces the shift from coal and oil to natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables like wind and solar, driven by efficiency, grid modernization, climate goals, and economic innovation.

Key Points

The U.S. Energy Transition is the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner power, driven by tech, policy, and markets.

✅ Shift from coal and oil to gas, nuclear, wind, and solar

✅ Enabled by grid modernization, storage, and efficiency

✅ Aims to cut emissions while ensuring reliability and affordability

The evolution of energy use in the United States is a dynamic narrative that reflects technological advancements, economic shifts, environmental awareness, and societal changes over time. From the nation's early reliance on wood and coal to the modern era dominated by oil, natural gas, and renewable sources, the story of energy consumption in the U.S. is a testament to innovation and adaptation.

Early Energy Sources: Wood and Coal

In the early days of U.S. history, energy needs were primarily met through renewable resources such as wood for heating and cooking. As industrialization took hold in the 19th century, coal emerged as a dominant energy source, fueling steam engines and powering factories, railways, and urban growth. The widespread availability of coal spurred economic development and shaped the nation's infrastructure.

The Rise of Petroleum and Natural Gas

The discovery and commercialization of petroleum in the late 19th century transformed the energy landscape once again. Oil quickly became a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, powering transportation, industry, and residential heating, and informing debates about U.S. energy security in policy circles. Concurrently, natural gas emerged as a significant energy source, particularly for heating and electricity generation, as pipelines expanded across the country.

Electricity Revolution

The 20th century witnessed a revolution in electricity generation and consumption, and understanding where electricity comes from helps contextualize how systems evolved. The development of hydroelectric power, spurred by projects like the Hoover Dam and Tennessee Valley Authority, provided clean and renewable energy to millions of Americans. The widespread electrification of rural areas and the proliferation of appliances in homes and businesses transformed daily life and spurred economic growth.

Nuclear Power and Energy Diversification

In the mid-20th century, nuclear power emerged as a promising alternative to fossil fuels, promising abundant energy with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. Despite concerns about safety and waste disposal, nuclear power plants became a significant part of the U.S. energy mix, providing a stable base load of electricity, even as the aging U.S. power grid complicates integration of variable renewables.

Renewable Energy Revolution

In recent decades, the U.S. has seen a growing emphasis on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power, yet market shocks and high fuel prices alone have not guaranteed a rapid green revolution, prompting broader policy and investment responses. Advances in technology, declining costs, and environmental concerns have driven investments in clean energy infrastructure and policies promoting renewable energy adoption. States like California and Texas lead the nation in wind and solar energy production, demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of transitioning to sustainable energy sources.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Alongside shifts in energy sources, improvements in energy efficiency and conservation have played a crucial role in reducing per capita energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy-efficient appliances, building codes, and transportation innovations have helped mitigate the environmental impact of energy use while reducing costs for consumers and businesses, and weather and economic factors also influence demand; for example, U.S. power demand fell in 2023 on milder weather, underscoring the interplay between efficiency and usage.

Challenges and Opportunities

Looking ahead, the U.S. faces both challenges and opportunities in its energy future, as recent energy crisis effects ripple across electricity, gas, and EVs alike. Addressing climate change requires further investments in renewable energy, grid modernization, and energy storage technologies. Balancing energy security, affordability, and environmental sustainability remains a complex task that requires collaboration between government, industry, and society.

Conclusion

The evolution of energy use throughout U.S. history reflects a continuous quest for innovation, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. From wood and coal to nuclear power and renewables, each era has brought new challenges and opportunities in meeting the nation's energy needs. As the U.S. transitions towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future, leveraging technological advancements and embracing policy solutions, amid debates over U.S. energy dominance, will be essential in shaping the next chapter of America's energy story.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV 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

BC Ferries Island Class hybrid ferries deliver quiet, battery-electric travel with shore power readiness, lower emissions, and larger capacity on northern routes, protecting marine wildlife while replacing older vessels on Powell River and Texada services.

Key Points

Hybrid-electric ferries using batteries and diesel for quiet, low-emission service, ready for shore power upgrades.

✅ Operate 20% electric at launch; future full-electric via shore power

✅ 300 passengers, 47 vehicles; replacing older, smaller vessels

✅ Quieter transits help protect West Coast whales and marine habitat

In a champagne celebration, BC Ferries welcomed two new, hybrid-electric ships into its fleet Wednesday. The ships arrived in Victoria last month, and are expected to be in service on northern routes by the summer.

The Island Aurora and Island Discovery have the ability to run on either diesel or electricity.

"The pressure on whales on the West Coast is very intense right now," said BC Ferries CEO Mark Collins. "Quiet operation is very important. These ships will be gliding out of the harbor quietly and electrically with no engines running, that will be really great for marine space."

BC Ferries says the ships will be running on electricity 20 per cent of the time when they enter service, but the company hopes they can run on electricity full-time in the future. That would require the installation of shoreline power, which the company hopes to have in place in the next five to 10 years. Each ship costs around $40-million, a price tag that the federal government partially subsidized through CIB support as part of the electrification push.

When the two ships begin running on the Powell River to Texada, and Port McNeill, Alert Bay, and Sointula routes, two older vessels will be retired.

On Kootenay Lake, an electric-ready ferry is slated to begin operations in 2023, reflecting the province's wider shift.

"They are replacing a 47-car ferry, but on some routes they will be replacing a 25-car ferry, so those routes will see a considerable increase in service," said Collins.

Although the ships will not be servicing Colwood, the municipality's mayor is hoping that one day, they will.

"We can look at an electric ferry when we look at a West Shore ferry that would move Colwood residents to Victoria," said Mayor Rob Martin, noting that across the province electric school buses are hitting the road as well. "Here is a great example of what BC Ferries can do for us."

BC Ferries says it will be adding four more hybrid ships to its fleet by 2022, and is working on adding hybrid ships that could run from Victoria to Tsawwassen, similar to Washington State Ferries' hybrid upgrade underway in the region. 

B.C’s first hybrid-electric ferries arrived in Victoria on Saturday morning ushering in a new era of travel for BC Ferries passengers, as electric seaplane flights are also on the horizon for the region.

“It’s a really exciting day for us,” said Tessa Humphries, spokesperson for BC Ferries.

It took the ferries 60 days to arrive at the Breakwater District at Ogden Point. They came all the way from Constanta, Romania.

“These are battery-equipped ships that are designed for fully electric operation; they are outfitted with hybrid technology that bridges the gap until the EV charging infrastructure and funding is available in British Columbia,” said Humphries.

The two new "Island Class" vessels arrived at about 9 a.m. to a handful of people eagerly wanting to witness history.

Sometime in the next few days, the transport ship that brought the new ferries to B.C. will go out into the harbor and partially submerge to allow them to be offloaded, Humphries said.

The transfer process could happen in four to five days from now. After the final preparations are finished at the Breakwater District, the ships will be re-commissioned in Point Hope Maritime and then BC Ferries will officially take ownership.

“We know a lot of people are interested in this so we will put out advisory once we have more information as to a viewing area to see the whole process,” said Humphries.

Both Island Class ferries can carry 300 passengers and 47 vehicles. They won’t be sailing until later this year, but Humphries tells CTV News they will be named by the end of February. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Rooftop Solar Cost Shift examines PG&E rate hikes, net metering changes, and utility infrastructure spending impacts on low-income households, distributed generation, and clean energy adoption, potentially raising bills and undermining grid resilience.

Key Points

A claim that rooftop solar shifts fixed grid costs to others; critics cite PG&E rates, avoided costs, and impacts.

✅ PG&E rates outpace national average, underscoring cost drivers.

✅ Net metering cuts risk burdening low- and middle-income homes.

✅ Distributed generation avoids infrastructure spend and grid strain.

California is grappling with soaring electricity prices across the state, with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates more than double the national average and increasing at an average of 12.5% annually over the past six years. In response, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state energy agencies to identify ways to reduce power costs. However, recent policy shifts targeting rooftop solar users may exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it.

The "Cost Shift" Theory

A central justification for these pricing changes is the "cost shift" theory. This theory posits that homeowners with rooftop solar panels reduce their electricity consumption from the grid, thereby shifting the fixed costs of maintaining and operating the electrical grid onto non-solar customers. Proponents argue that this leads to higher rates for those without solar installations.

However, this theory is based on a flawed assumption: that PG&E owns 100% of the electricity generated by its customers and is entitled to full profits even for energy it does not deliver. In reality, rooftop solar users supply only about half of their energy needs and still pay for the rest. Moreover, their investments in solar infrastructure reduce grid strain and save ratepayers billions by avoiding costly infrastructure projects and reducing energy demand growth, aligning with efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid as well.

Impact on Low- and Middle-Income Households

The majority of rooftop solar users are low- and middle-income households. These individuals often invest in solar panels to lower their energy bills and reduce their carbon footprint. Policy changes that undermine the financial viability of rooftop solar disproportionately affect these communities, and efforts to overturn income-based charges add uncertainty about affordability and access.

For instance, Assembly Bill 942 proposes to retroactively alter contracts for millions of solar consumers, cutting the compensation they receive from providing energy to the grid, raising questions about major changes to your electric bill that could follow if their home is sold or transferred. This would force those with solar leases—predominantly lower-income individuals—to buy out their contracts when selling their homes, potentially incurring significant financial burdens.

The Real Drivers of Rising Energy Costs

While rooftop solar users are being blamed for rising electricity rates, calls for action have mounted as the true culprits lie elsewhere. Unchecked utility infrastructure spending has been a significant factor in escalating costs. For example, PG&E's rates have increased rapidly, yet the utility's spending on infrastructure projects has often been criticized for inefficiency and lack of accountability. Instead of targeting solar users, policymakers should scrutinize utility profit motives and infrastructure investments to identify areas where costs can be reduced without sacrificing service quality.

California's approach to addressing rising electricity costs by targeting rooftop solar users is misguided. The "cost shift" theory is based on flawed assumptions and overlooks the substantial benefits that rooftop solar provides to the grid and ratepayers. To achieve a sustainable and equitable energy future, the state must focus on controlling utility spending, promoting clean energy access for all, especially as it exports its energy policies across the West, and ensuring that policies support—not undermine—the adoption of renewable energy technologies.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News