The high price of burying lines

PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit alleges utility negligence, inadequate infrastructure maintenance, and faulty transmission lines, as victims seek compensation. Regulators investigate the blaze, echoing class actions after Victoria's Black Saturday mega-fires and utility oversight failures.

Key Points

PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit alleges utility negligence and power line faults, seeking victim compensation amid investigations.

✅ Alleged failure to maintain transmission infrastructure

✅ Spark reports and regulator filings before blaze erupted

✅ Class action parallels with Australia's Black Saturday

Victims of California's most destructive wildfire have filed a lawsuit accusing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. of causing the massive blaze, a move that follows the utility's 2018 Camp Fire guilty plea in a separate case.

The suit filed on Tuesday in state court in California accuses the utility of failing to maintain its infrastructure and properly inspect and manage its power transmission lines, amid prior reports that power lines may have sparked fires in California.

The utility's president said earlier the company doesn't know what caused the fire, but is cooperating with the investigation by state agencies, and other utilities such as Southern California Edison have faced wildfire lawsuits in California.

PG&E told state regulators last week that it experienced a problem with a transmission line in the area of the fire just before the blaze erupted.

A landowner near where the blaze began said PG&E notified her the day before the wildfire that crews needed to come onto her property because some wires were sparking, and the company later promoted its wildfire assistance program for victims seeking aid.

A massive class action after Australia's last mega-fire, Victoria's Black Saturday in 2009, saw $688.5 million paid in compensation to thousands of claimants affected by the Kilmore-Kinglake and Murrindindi-Marysville fires, partly by electricity company SP Ausnet, and partly by government agencies, while in California PG&E's bankruptcy plan won support from wildfire victims addressing compensation claims.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Wildfire Power Shut-Offs escalate as PG&E imposes blackouts amid high winds, Getty and Kincade fires, mass evacuations, Sonoma County threats, and a state of emergency, drawing regulatory scrutiny over grid safety and outage scope.

Key Points

Planned utility outages to curb wildfire risk during extreme winds, prompting evacuations and regulatory scrutiny.

✅ PG&E preemptive blackouts under regulator inquiry

✅ Getty and Kincade fires drive mass evacuations

✅ Sonoma County under threat amid high winds

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) already faces an investigation by regulators after cutting supplies to 970,000 homes and businesses amid California blackouts that raised concerns.

It announced that another 650,000 properties would face precautionary shut-offs.

Wildfires fanned by the strong winds are raging in two parts of the state.

Thousands of residents near the wealthy Brentwood neighbourhood of Los Angeles have been told to evacuate because of a wildfire that began early on Monday.

Further north in Sonoma County, a larger fire has forced 180,000 people from their homes.

California's governor has declared a state-wide emergency.

What about the power cuts?

On Monday regulators announced a formal inquiry into whether energy utilities broke rules by pre-emptively cutting power to an estimated 2.5 million people, amid a blackouts policy debate that intensified, as wildfire risks soared.

They did not name any utilities but analysts said PG&E was responsible for the bulk of the "public safety power shut-offs", and later faced a Camp Fire guilty plea that underscored its liabilities.

The company filed for bankruptcy in January after facing hundreds of lawsuits from victims of wildfires in 2017 and 2018.

Of the 970,000 properties hit by the most recent cuts, under half had their services back by Monday, and some sought help through wildfire assistance programs, the Associated Press reported.

Despite criticism that the precautionary blackouts were too widespread and too disruptive, PG&E said more would come on Tuesday and Wednesday because further strong winds were expected.

The company said it had logged more than 20 preliminary reports of damage to its network from the most recent windstorm.

In a video posted to Twitter on Saturday, Governor Gavin Newsom said the power cuts were "infuriating everyone, and rightfully so".

Where are the fires now?

In Los Angeles, the Getty Fire has burned over 600 acres (242 ha) and about 10,000 buildings are in the mandatory evacuation zone.

At least eight homes have been destroyed and five others damaged.

"If you are in an evacuation zone, don't screw around," Mr Schwarzenegger tweeted. "Get out."

LA fire chief Ralph Terrazas said fire crews had been "overwhelmed" by the scale of the fires.

"They had to make some tough decisions on which houses they were able to protect," he said.

"Many times it depends on where the ember lands. I saw homes that were adjacent to homes that were totally destroyed, without any damage."

In northern California, schools remain closed in Sonoma County, where tens of thousands of homes and businesses are under threat.

Sonoma has been ravaged by the Kincade Fire, which started on Wednesday and has burned through 50,000 acres of land, fanned by the winds.

The Kincade Fire began seven minutes after a nearby power line was damaged, and power lines may have started fires according to reports, but PG&E has not yet confirmed if the power glitch started the blaze.

About 180,000 people have been ordered to evacuate, with roads around Santa Rosa north of San Francisco packed with cars as people tried to flee.

There are fears the flames could cross the 101 highway and enter areas that have not seen wildfires since the 1940s.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nalcor Energy Pandemic Loss underscores Muskrat Falls delays, hydroelectric risks, oil price shocks, and COVID-19 impacts, affecting ratepayers, provincial debt, timelines, and software commissioning for the Churchill River project and Atlantic Canada subsea transmission.

Key Points

A $171M Q1 2020 downturn linked to COVID-19, oil price collapse, and Muskrat Falls delays impacting schedules and costs.

✅ Q1 2020 profit swing: +$92M to -$171M amid oil price crash

✅ Muskrat Falls timeline slips; cost may reach $13.1B

✅ Software, workforce, COVID-19 constraints slow commissioning

Newfoundland and Labrador's Crown energy corporation reported a pandemic-related profit loss from the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, along with further complications to the beleaguered Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

Nalcor Energy recorded a profit loss of $171 million in the first quarter of 2020, down from a $92 million profit in the same period last year, due in part to falling oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The company released its financial statements for 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, and officials discussed the numbers in a livestreamed presentation that detailed the impact of the global health crisis on the company's operations.

The loss in the first quarter was caused by lower profits from electricity sales and a drop in oil prices due to the pandemic and other global events, company officials said.

The novel coronavirus also added to the troubles plaguing the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam on Labrador's Churchill River, amid Quebec-N.L. energy tensions that long predate the pandemic.

Work at the remote site stopped in March over concerns about spreading the virus. Operations have been resuming slowly, with a reduced workforce tackling the remaining jobs.

Officials with Nalcor said it will likely be another year before the megaproject is complete.

CEO Stan Marshall estimates the months of delays could bring the total cost to $13.1 billion including financing, up from the previous estimate of $12.7 billion -- though the total impact of the coronavirus on the project's price tag has yet to be determined.

"If we're going to shut down again, all of that's wrong," Marshall said. "But otherwise, we can just carry on and we'll have a good idea of the productivity level. I'm hoping that by September we'll have a more definitive number here."

The 824 megawatt hydroelectric dam will eventually send power to Newfoundland, and later Nova Scotia, through subsea cables, even as Nova Scotia boosts wind and solar in its energy mix.

It has seen costs essentially double since it was approved in 2012, and faced significant delays even before pandemic-forced shutdowns in North America and around the world this spring.

Cost and schedule overruns were the subject of a sweeping inquiry that held hearings last year, while broader generation choices like biomass use have drawn scrutiny as well.

The commissioner's report faulted previous governments for failing to protect residents by proceeding with the project no matter what, and for placing trust in Nalcor executives who "frequently" concealed information about schedule, cost and related risks.

Some of the latest delays have come from challenges with the development of software required to run the transmission link between Labrador and Newfoundland, where winter reliability issues have been flagged in reports.

The software is still being worked out, Marshall said Tuesday, and the four units at the dam will come online gradually over the next year.

"It's not an all or nothing thing," Marshall said of the final work stages.
Nalcor's financial snapshot follows a bleak fiscal update from the province this month. The Liberal government reported a net debt of $14.2 billion and a deficit of more than $1.1 billion, even as a recent Churchill Falls deal promised new revenues for the province, citing challenges from pandemic-related closures and oil production shutdowns.

Finance Minister Tom Osborne said at the time that help from Ottawa will be necessary to get the province's finances back on track.

Muskrat Falls represents about one-third of the province's debt, and is set to produce more power than the province of about half a million people requires. Anticipated rate increases due to the ballooning costs and questions about Muskrat Falls benefits have posed a significant political challenge for the provincial government.

Ottawa has agreed to work with Newfoundland and Labrador on a rewrite of the project's financial structure, scrapping the format agreed upon in past federal-provincial loan agreements in order to ease the burden on ratepayers, while some argue independent planning would better safeguard ratepayers.

Marshall, a former Fortis CEO who was brought in to lead Nalcor in 2016, has called the project a "boondoggle" and committed to seeing it completed within four years. Though that plan has been disrupted by the pandemic, Marshall said the end is in sight.

"I'm looking forward to a year from now. And I hope to be gone," Marshall said.

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

Germany 2025 Energy Costs forecast electricity and heating price trends amid gas volatility, renewables expansion, grid upgrades, and policy subsidies, highlighting impacts on households, industries, efficiency measures, and the Energiewende transition dynamics.

Key Points

Electricity stabilizes, gas-driven heating stays high; renewables, subsidies, and efficiency measures moderate costs.

✅ Power prices stabilize above pre-crisis levels

✅ Gas volatility keeps heating bills elevated

✅ Subsidies and efficiency upgrades offset some costs

As Germany moves into 2025, the country is facing significant shifts in heating and electricity costs. With a variety of factors influencing energy prices, including geopolitical tensions, government policies, and the ongoing transition to renewable energy sources, consumers and businesses alike are bracing for potential changes in their energy bills. In this article, we will explore how heating and electricity costs are expected to evolve in Germany in the coming year and what that means for households and industries.

Energy Price Trends in Germany

In recent years, energy prices in Germany have experienced notable fluctuations, particularly due to the aftermath of the global energy crisis, which was exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This geopolitical shift disrupted gas supplies, which in turn affected electricity prices and strained local utilities across the country. Although the German government introduced measures to mitigate some of the price increases, many households have still felt the strain of higher energy costs.

For 2024, experts predict that electricity prices will likely stabilize but remain higher than pre-crisis levels. While electricity prices nearly doubled in 2022, they have gradually started to decline, and the market has adjusted to the new realities of energy supply and demand. Despite this, the cost of electricity is expected to stay elevated as Germany continues to phase out coal and nuclear energy while ramping up the use of renewable sources, which often require significant infrastructure investments.

Heating Costs: A Mixed Outlook

Heating costs in Germany are heavily influenced by natural gas prices, which have been volatile since the onset of the energy crisis. Gas prices, although lower than the peak levels seen in 2022, are still considerably higher than in the years before. This means that households relying on gas heating can expect to pay more for warmth in 2024 compared to previous years.

The government has implemented measures to cushion the impact of these increased costs, such as subsidies for vulnerable households and efforts to support energy efficiency upgrades. Despite these efforts, consumers will still feel the pinch, particularly in homes that use older, less efficient heating systems. The transition to more sustainable heating solutions, such as heat pumps, remains a key goal for the German government. However, the upfront cost of such systems can be a barrier for many households.

The Role of Renewable Energy and the Green Transition

Germany has set ambitious goals for its energy transition, known as the "Energiewende," which aims to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and increase the share of renewable energy sources in the national grid. In 2024, Germany is expected to see further increases in renewable energy generation, particularly from wind and solar power. While this transition is essential for reducing carbon emissions and improving long-term energy security, the shift comes with its own challenges already documented in EU electricity market trends reports.

One of the main factors influencing electricity costs in the short term is the intermittency of renewable energy sources. Wind and solar power are not always available when demand peaks, requiring backup power generation from fossil fuels or stored energy. Additionally, the infrastructure needed to accommodate a higher share of renewables, including grid upgrades and energy storage solutions, is costly and will likely contribute to rising electricity prices in the near term.

On a positive note, Germany's growing investment in renewable energy is expected to make the country less reliant on imported fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, which has been a major source of price volatility. Over time, as the share of renewables in the energy mix grows, the energy system should become more stable and less susceptible to geopolitical shocks, which could lead to more predictable and potentially lower energy costs in the long run.

Government Interventions and Subsidies

To help ease the burden on consumers, the German government has continued to implement various measures to support households and businesses. One of the key programs is the reduction in VAT (Value Added Tax) on electricity, which has been extended in some regions. This measure is designed to make electricity more affordable for all households, particularly those on fixed incomes facing EU energy inflation pressures that have hit the poorest hardest.

Moreover, the government has been providing financial incentives for households and businesses to invest in energy-efficient technologies, such as insulation and energy-saving heating systems, complementing the earlier 200 billion euro energy shield announced to buffer surging prices. These incentives are intended to reduce overall energy consumption, which could offset some of the rising costs.

The outlook for heating and electricity costs in Germany for 2024 is mixed, even as energy demand hit a historic low amid economic stagnation. While some relief from the extreme price spikes of 2022 may be felt, energy costs will still be higher than they were in previous years. Households relying on gas heating will likely see continued elevated costs, although those who invest in energy-efficient solutions or renewable heating technologies may be able to offset some of the increases. Similarly, electricity prices are expected to stabilize but remain high due to the country’s ongoing transition to renewable energy sources.

While the green transition is crucial for long-term sustainability, consumers must be prepared for potentially higher energy costs in the short term. Government subsidies and incentives will help alleviate some of the financial pressure, but households should consider strategies to reduce energy consumption, such as investing in more efficient heating systems or adopting renewable energy solutions like solar panels.

As Germany navigates these changes, the country’s energy future will undoubtedly be shaped by a delicate balance between environmental goals and the economic realities of transitioning to a greener energy system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News