Barrie Hydro merger a done deal

Spring Storm Grid Risks highlight tornado outbreaks, flooding, power outages, and transmission disruptions, with NOAA flood outlooks, coal and barge delays, vulnerable nuclear sites, and distribution line damage demanding resilience, reliability, and emergency preparedness.

Key Points

Spring Storm Grid Risks show how tornadoes and floods disrupt power systems, fuel transport, and plants guide resilience.

✅ Tornado outbreaks and derechos damage distribution and transmission

✅ Flooding drives outages via treefall, substation and plant inundation

✅ Fuel logistics disrupted: rail coal, river barges, road access

The storm and tornado outbreak that recently barreled through the US Midwest, South and Mid-Atlantic was a devastating reminder of how much danger spring can deliver, despite it being the “milder” season compared to summer and winter.  

Danger season is approaching, and the country is starting to see the impacts. 

The event killed at least 32 people across seven states. The National Weather Service is still tallying up the number of confirmed tornadoes, which has already passed 100. Communities coping with tragedy are assessing the damage, which so far includes at least 72 destroyed homes in one Tennessee county alone, and dozens more homes elsewhere. 

On Saturday, April 1–the day after the storm struck–there were 1.1 million US utility customers without power, even as EIA reported a January power generation surge earlier in the year. On Monday morning, April 3, there were still more than 80,000 customers in the dark, according to PowerOutage.us. The storm system brought disruptions to both distribution grids–those networks of local power lines you generally see running overhead to buildings–as well as the larger transmission grid in the Midwest, which is far less common than distribution-level issues. 

While we don’t yet have a lot of granular details about this latest storm’s grid impacts, recent shifts in demand like New York City's pandemic power patterns show how operating conditions evolve, and it’s worth going through what else the country might be in for this spring, as well as in future springs. Moreover, there are steps policymakers can take to prepare for these spring weather phenomena and bolster the reliability and resilience of the US power system. 

Heightened flood risk 
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a recent outlook that about 44 percent of the United States is at risk of floods this spring, equating to about 146 million people. This includes most of the eastern half of the country, the federal agency said. 

The agency also sees “major” flood risk potential in some parts of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and relatively higher risk in the Sierra Nevada region, due in part to a historic snowpack in California.  

Multiple components of the power system can be affected by spring floods. 

Power lines – Floods can saturate soil and make trees more likely to uproot and fall onto power lines. This has been contributing to power outages during California’s recent heavy storms–called atmospheric rivers–that started over the winter. In other regions, soil moisture has even been used as a predictor of where power outages will occur due to hurricanes, so that utility companies are better prepared to send line repair crews to the right areas. Hurricanes are primarily a summer and fall phenomenon, and summer also brings grid stress from air conditioning demand in many states, so for now, during spring, they are less of a concern.  

Fuel transport – Spring floods can hinder the transportation of fuels like coal. While it is a heavily polluting fossil fuel that is set to continue declining as a fuel source for US electricity generation, with the EIA summer outlook for wind and solar pointing to further shifts, coal still accounted for roughly 20 percent of the country’s generation in 2022.   

About 70 percent of US coal is transported at least part of the way by trains. The rail infrastructure to transport coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming–the country’s primary coal source–was proven to be vulnerable to extreme floods in the spring of 2011, and even more extreme floods in the spring of 2019. The 2019 floods’ disruptions of coal shipments to power plants via rail persisted for months and into the summertime, also affecting river shipments of coal by barge. In June 2019, hundreds of barges were stalled in the Mississippi River, through which millions of tons of the fossil fuel are normally transported. 

Power plants – Power plants themselves can also be at risk of flooding, since most of them are sited near a source of water that is used to create steam to spin the plants’ turbines, and conversely, low water levels can constrain hydropower as seen in Western Canada hydropower drought during recent reservoir shortfalls. Most US fossil fuel generating capacity from sources like methane gas, which recently set natural gas power records across the grid, and coal utilizes steam to generate electricity. 

However, much of the attention paid to the flood risk of power plant sites has centered on nuclear plants, a key source of low-carbon electricity discussed in IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons that also require a water source for the creation of steam, as well as for keeping the plant cool in an emergency. To name a notable flood example here in the United States–both visually and substantively–in 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska was completely surrounded by water due to late-spring flooding along the Missouri River. This sparked a lot of concerns because it was just a few months after the March 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. The public was thankfully not harmed by the Nebraska incident, but this was unfortunately not an isolated incident in terms of flood risks posed to the US nuclear power fleet. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Power Market Overhaul targets soaring electricity prices by decoupling gas from power, boosting renewables, refining price caps, and stabilizing grids amid inflation, supply shocks, droughts, nuclear outages, and intermittent wind and solar.

Key Points

EU plan to redesign electricity pricing, curb gas-driven costs, boost renewables, and protect consumers from volatility.

✅ Decouples power prices from marginal gas generation

✅ Caps non-gas revenues to fund consumer relief

✅ Supports grid stability with storage, demand response, LNG

While energy prices are soaring around the world, Europe is in a particularly tight spot. Its heavy dependence on Russian gas -- on top of droughts, heat waves, an unreliable fleet of French nuclear reactors and a continent-wide shift to greener but more intermittent sources like solar and wind -- has been driving electricity bills up and feeding the highest inflation in decades. As Europe stands on the brink of a recession, and with the winter heating season approaching, officials are considering a major overhaul of the region’s power market to reflect the ongoing shift from fossil fuels to renewables.

1. How is electricity priced? 
Unlike oil or natural gas, there’s no efficient way to save lots of electricity to use in the future, though projects to store electricity in gas pipes are emerging. Commercial use of large-scale batteries is still years away. So power prices have been set by the availability at any given moment. When it’s really windy or sunny, for example, then more is produced relatively cheaply and prices are lower. If that supply shrinks, then prices rise because more generators are brought online to help meet demand -- fueled by more expensive sources. The way the market has long worked is that it is that final technology, or type of plant, needed to meet the last unit of consumption that sets the price for everyone. In Europe this year, that has usually meant natural gas. 

2. What is the relationship between power and gas? 
Very close. Across western Europe, gas plants have been a vital part of the energy infrastructure for decades, with Irish price spikes highlighting dispatchable power risks, fed in large part by supplies piped in from Siberia. Gas-fired plants were relatively quick to build and the technology straightforward, at least compared with nuclear plants and burns cleaner than coal. About 18% of Europe’s electricity was generated at gas plants last year; in 2020 about 43% of the imported gas came from Russia. Even during the depths of the Cold War, there’d never been a serious supply problem -- until the relationship with Russia deteriorated this year after it invaded Ukraine. Diversifying away from Russia, such as by increasing imports of liquefied natural gas, requires new infrastructure that takes a lot of time and money.

3. Why does it work this way? 
In theory, the relationship isn’t different from that with coal, for example. But production hiccups and heatwave curbs on plants from nuclear in France to hydro in Spain and Norway significantly changed the generation picture this year, and power hit records as plants buckled in the heat. Since coal-fired and nuclear plants are generally running all the time anyway, gas plants were being called upon more often -- at times just to keep the lights on as summer temperatures hit records. And with the war in Ukraine resulting in record gas prices, that pushed up overall production costs. It’s that relationship that has made the surging gas price the driver for electricity prices. And since the continent is all connected, it has pushed up prices across the region. The value of the European power market jumped threefold last year, to a record 836 billion euros ($827 billion today).

4. What’s being considered? 
With large parts of European industry on its knees and households facing jumps in energy bills of several hundred percent, as record electricity prices ripple through markets, the pressure on governments and the European Union to intervene has never been higher. One major proposal is to impose a price cap on electricity from non-gas producers, with the difference between that and the market price channeled to relief for consumers. While it sounds simple, any such changes would rip up a market design that’s worked for decades and could threaten future investments because of unintended consequences.

5. How did this market evolve?
The Nordic region and the British market were front-runners in the 1990s, then Germany followed and is now the largest by far. A trader can buy and sell electricity delivered later on same day in blocks of an hour or even down to 15-minute periods, to meet sudden demand or take advantage of price differentials. The price for these contracts is decided entirely by the supply and demand, how much the wind is blowing or which coal plants are operating, for example. Demand tends to surge early in the morning and late afternoon. This system was designed when fossil fuels provided the bulk of power. Now there are more renewables, which are less predictable, with wind and solar surpassing gas in EU generation last year, and the proposed changes reflect that shift. 

6. What else have governments done?
There are also traders who focus on longer-dated contracts covering periods several years ahead, where broader factors such as expected economic output and the extent to which renewables are crowding out gas help drive prices. This year’s wild price swings have prompted countries including Germany, Sweden and Finland to earmark billions of euros in emergency liquidity loans to backstop utilities hit with sudden margin calls on their trading.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nuclear decarbonization leverages low-carbon electricity, process heat, and hydrogen from advanced reactors and SMRs to electrify industry, buildings, and transport, supporting net-zero strategies and grid flexibility alongside renewables with dispatchable baseload capacity.

Key Points

Nuclear decarbonization uses reactors to supply low-carbon power, heat, and hydrogen, cutting emissions across industry.

✅ Advanced reactors and SMRs enable high-temperature process heat

✅ Nuclear-powered electrolysis and HTSE produce low-carbon hydrogen

✅ District heating from reactors reduces pollution and coal use

By Dr Henri Paillere, Head of the Planning and Economics Studies Section of the IAEA

Decarbonising the power sector will not be sufficient to achieving net-zero emissions, with assessments indicating nuclear may be essential across sectors. We also need to decarbonise the non-power sectors - transport, buildings and industry - which represent 60% of emissions from the energy sector today. The way to do that is: electrification with low-carbon electricity as much as possible; using low-carbon heat sources; and using low-carbon fuels, including hydrogen, produced from clean electricity.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that: 'Almost half of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero by 2050 will need to come from technologies that have not reached the market today.' So there is a need to innovate and push the research, development and deployment of technologies. That includes nuclear beyond electricity.

Today, most of the scenario projections see nuclear's role ONLY in the power sector, despite ongoing debates over whether nuclear power is in decline globally, but increased electrification will require more low-carbon electricity, so potentially more nuclear. Nuclear energy is also a source of low-carbon heat, and could also be used to produce low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen. This is a virtually untapped potential.

There is an opportunity for the nuclear energy sector - from advanced reactors, next-gen nuclear small modular reactors, and non-power applications - but it requires a level playing field, not only in terms of financing today's technologies, but also in terms of promoting innovation and supporting research up to market deployment. And of course technology readiness and economics will be key to their success.

On process heat and district heating, I would draw attention to the fact there have been decades of experience in nuclear district heating. Not well spread, but experience nonetheless, in Russia, Hungary and Switzerland. Last year, we had two new projects. One floating nuclear power plant in Russia (Akademik Lomonosov), which provides not only electricity but district heating to the region of Pevek where it is connected. And in China, the Haiyang nuclear power plant (AP1000 technology) has started delivering commercial district heating. In China, there is an additional motivation to reducing emissions, namely to cut air pollution because in northern China a lot of the heating in winter is provided by coal-fired boilers. By going nuclear with district heating they are therefore cutting down on this pollution and helping with reducing carbon emissions as well. And Poland is looking at high-temperature reactors to replace its fleet of coal-fired boilers and so that's a technology that could also be a game-changer on the industry side.

There have also been decades of research into the production of hydrogen using nuclear energy, but no real deployment. Now, from a climate point of view, there is a clear drive to find substitute fuels for the hydrocarbon fuels that we use today, and multiple new nuclear stations are seen by industry leaders as necessary to meet net-zero targets. In the near term, we will be able to produce hydrogen with electrolysis using low-carbon electricity, from renewables and nuclear. But the cheapest source of low-carbon power is from the long-term operation of existing nuclear power plants which, combined with their high capacity factors, can give the cheapest low-carbon hydrogen of all.

In the mid to long term, there is research on-going with processes that are more efficient than low-temperature electrolysis, which is high temperature steam electrolysis or thermal splitting of water. These may offer higher efficiencies and effectiveness but they also require advanced reactors that are still under development. Demonstration projects are being considered in several countries and we at the IAEA are developing a publication that looks into the business opportunities for nuclear production of hydrogen from existing reactors. In some countries, there is a need to boost the economics of the existing fleet, especially in the electricity systems where you have low or even negative market prices for electricity. So, we are looking at other products that have higher values to improve the competitiveness of existing nuclear power plants.

The future means not only looking at electricity, but also at industry and transport, and so integrated energy systems. Electricity will be the main workhorse of our global decarbonisation effort, but through heat and hydrogen. How you model this is the object of a lot of research work being done by different institutes and we at the IAEA are developing some modelling capabilities with the objective of optimising low-carbon emissions and overall costs.

This is just a picture of what the future might look like: a low-carbon power system with nuclear lightwater reactors (large reactors, small modular reactors and fast reactors) drawing on the green industrial revolution reactor waves in planning; solar, wind, anything that produces low-carbon electricity that can be used to electrify industry, transport, and the heating and cooling of buildings. But we know there is a need for high-temperature process steam that electricity cannot bring but which can be delivered directly by high-temperature reactors. And there are a number of ways of producing low-carbon hydrogen. The beauty of hydrogen is that it can be stored and it could possibly be injected into gas networks that could be run in the future on 100% hydrogen, and this could be converted back into electricity.

So, for decarbonising power, there are many options - nuclear, hydro, variable renewables, with renewables poised to surpass coal in global generation, and fossil with carbon capture and storage - and it's up to countries and industries to invest in the ones they prefer. We find that nuclear can actually reduce the overall cost of systems due to its dispatchability and the fact that variable renewables have a cost because of their intermittency. There is a need for appropriate market designs and the role of governments to encourage investments in nuclear.

Decarbonising other sectors will be as important as decarbonising electricity, from ways to produce low-carbon heat and low-carbon hydrogen. It's not so obvious who will be the clear winners, but I would say that since nuclear can produce all three low-carbon vectors - electricity, heat and hydrogen - it should have the advantage.
We at the IAEA will be organising a webinar next month with the IEA looking at long-term nuclear projections in a net-zero world, building on IAEA analysis on COVID-19 and low-carbon electricity insights. That will be our contribution from the point of view of nuclear to the IEA's special report on roadmaps to net zero that it will publish in May.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hitachi UK Nuclear Project Freeze reflects Horizon Nuclear Power's suspended Anglesey plant amid Brexit uncertainty, investor funding gaps, rising safety regulation costs, and a 300 billion yen write-down, impacting Britain's low-carbon electricity plans.

Key Points

Hitachi halted Horizon's Anglesey nuclear plant over funding and Brexit risks, recording a 300 billion yen write-down.

✅ 3 trillion yen UK nuclear project funding stalled

✅ 300 billion yen impairment wipes Horizon asset value

✅ Brexit, safety rules raised costs and investor risk

Japan’s Hitachi Ltd said on Thursday it has decided to freeze a 3 trillion yen ($28 billion) British nuclear power project and will consequently book a write down of 300 billion yen.

The suspension comes as Hitachi’s Horizon Nuclear Power failed to find private investors for its plans to build a plant in Anglesey, Wales, where local economic concerns have been raised, which promised to provide about 6 percent of Britain’s electricity.

“We’ve made the decision to freeze the project from the economic standpoint as a private company,” Hitachi said in a statement.

Hitachi had called on the British government to boost financial support for the project to appease investor anxiety, but turmoil over the country’s impending exit from the European Union limited the government’s capacity to compile plans, people close to the matter previously said.

Hitachi had called on the British government to boost financial support for the project to appease investor anxiety, but turmoil over the country’s impending exit from the European Union and setbacks at Hinkley Point C limited the government’s capacity to compile plans, people close to the matter previously said.

Hitachi had banked on a group of Japanese investors and the British government each taking a one-third stake in the equity portion of the project, the people said. The project would be financed one-third by equity and rest by debt.

The nuclear writedown wipes off the Horizon unit’s asset value, which stood at 296 billion yen as of September-end.

Hitachi stopped short of scrapping the northern Wales project. The company will continue to discuss with the British government on nuclear power, it said.

However, industry sources said hurdles to proceed with the project are high considering tighter safety regulations since a meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011 drove up costs, even as Europe’s nuclear decline strains energy planning.

Analysts and investors viewed the suspension as an effective withdrawal and saw the decision as a positive step that has removed uncertainties for the Japanese conglomerate.

Hitachi bought Horizon in 2012 for 696 million pounds ($1.12 billion), fromE.ON and RWE as the German utilities decided to sell their joint venture following Germany’s nuclear exit after the Fukushima accident.

Hitachi’s latest decision further dims Japan’s export prospects, even as some peers pursue UK offshore wind investments to diversify.

Toshiba Corp last year scrapped its British NuGen project after its US reactor unit Westinghouse went bankrupt, while Westinghouse in China reported no major impact, and it failed to sell NuGen to South Korea’s KEPCO.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd has effectively abandoned its Sinop nuclear project in Turkey, a person involved in the project previously told Reuters, as cost estimates had nearly doubled to around 5 trillion yen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Mississauga Fuel Cell Electric Buses advance zero-emission public transit, leveraging hydrogen fuel cells, green hydrogen supply, rapid refueling, and extended range to cut GHGs, improve air quality, and modernize sustainable urban mobility.

Key Points

Hydrogen fuel cell buses power electric drivetrains for zero-emission service, long range, and quick refueling.

✅ Zero tailpipe emissions improve urban air quality

✅ Longer route range than battery-electric buses

✅ Hydrogen fueling is rapid, enabling high uptime

Mississauga, Ontario, is gearing up for a significant shift in its public transportation landscape with the introduction of fuel cell electric buses (FCEBs). This initiative marks a pivotal step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the sustainability of public transport in the region. The city, known for its vibrant urban environment and bustling economy, is making strides to ensure that its transit system evolves in harmony with environmental goals.

The recent announcement highlights the commitment of Mississauga to embrace clean energy solutions. The integration of FCEBs is part of a broader strategy to modernize the transit fleet while tackling climate change. As cities around the world seek to reduce their carbon footprints, Mississauga’s initiative aligns with global trends toward greener urban transport, where projects like the TTC battery-electric buses demonstrate practical pathways.

What are Fuel Cell Electric Buses?

Fuel cell electric buses utilize hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity, which powers the vehicle's electric motor. Unlike traditional buses that run on diesel or gasoline, FCEBs produce zero tailpipe emissions, making them an environmentally friendly alternative. The only byproducts of their operation are water and heat, significantly reducing air pollution in urban areas.

The technology behind FCEBs is becoming increasingly viable as hydrogen production becomes more sustainable. With the advancement of green hydrogen production methods, which use renewable energy sources to create hydrogen, and because some electricity in Canada still comes from fossil fuels, the environmental benefits of fuel cell technology are further amplified. Mississauga’s investment in these buses is not only a commitment to cleaner air but also a boost for innovative technology in the transportation sector.

Benefits for Mississauga

The introduction of FCEBs is poised to offer numerous benefits to the residents of Mississauga. Firstly, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions aligns with the city’s climate action goals and complements Canada’s EV goals at the national level. By investing in cleaner public transit options, Mississauga is taking significant steps to improve air quality and combat climate change.

Moreover, FCEBs are known for their efficiency and longer range compared to battery electric buses, such as the Metro Vancouver fleet now operating across the region, commonly used in Canadian cities. This means they can operate longer routes without the need for frequent recharging, making them ideal for busy transit systems. The use of hydrogen fuel can also result in shorter fueling times compared to electric charging, enhancing operational efficiency.

In addition to environmental and operational advantages, the introduction of these buses presents economic opportunities. The deployment of FCEBs can create jobs in the local economy, from maintenance to hydrogen production facilities, similar to how St. Albert’s electric buses supported local capabilities. This aligns with broader trends of sustainable economic development that prioritize green jobs.

Challenges Ahead

While the potential benefits of FCEBs are clear, the transition to this technology is not without its challenges. One of the main hurdles is the establishment of a robust hydrogen infrastructure. To support the operation of fuel cell buses, Mississauga will need to invest in hydrogen production, storage, and fueling stations, much as Edmonton’s first electric bus required dedicated charging infrastructure. Collaboration with regional and provincial partners will be crucial to develop this infrastructure effectively.

Additionally, public acceptance and awareness of hydrogen technology will be essential. As with any new technology, there may be skepticism regarding safety and efficiency. Educational campaigns will be necessary to inform the public about the advantages of FCEBs and how they contribute to a more sustainable future, and recent TTC’s battery-electric rollout offers a useful reference for outreach efforts.

Looking Forward

As Mississauga embarks on this innovative journey, the introduction of fuel cell electric buses signifies a forward-thinking approach to public transportation. The city’s commitment to sustainability not only enhances its transit system but also sets a precedent for other municipalities to follow.

In conclusion, the shift towards fuel cell electric buses in Mississauga exemplifies a significant leap toward greener public transport. With ongoing efforts to tackle climate change and improve urban air quality, Mississauga is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable transit solutions. The future looks promising for both the city and its residents as they embrace cleaner, more efficient transportation options. As this initiative unfolds, it will be closely watched by other cities looking to implement similar sustainable practices in their own transit systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News