California unveils ambitious climate plan

Hospital Electricity Reliability underpins ICU operations, ventilators, medical devices, and diagnostics, reducing power outages risks via grid power and backup generators, while energy poverty and blackouts magnify COVID-19 mortality in vulnerable regions.

Key Points

Hospital electricity reliability is steady power that keeps ICU care, ventilators and medical devices operating.

✅ ICU loads: ventilators, monitors, infusion pumps, diagnostics

✅ Grid power plus backup generators minimize outage risk

✅ Energy poverty increases COVID-19 mortality and infection

Robert Bryce, Contributor

During her three-year career as a registered nurse, my friend, C., has cared for tuberculosis patients as well as ones with severe respiratory problems. She’s now caring for COVID-19 patients at a hospital in Ventura County, California, where debates about keeping the lights on continue amid the state’s energy transition. Is she scared about catching the virus? “No,” she replied during a phone call on Thursday. “I’m pretty unflappable.”

What would scare her? She quickly replied, “a power outage,” a threat that grows during summer blackouts when heat waves drive demand. About a year ago, while working in Oregon, the hospital she was working in lost power for about 45 minutes. “It was terrifying,” she said. 

C., who wasn’t authorized by her hospital to talk to the media, and thus asked me to only use the initial of her first name, said that COVID-19 patients are particularly reliant on electrical devices. She quickly ticked off the machines: “The bed, the IV machine, vital signs monitor, heart monitor, the sequential compression devices...” COVID-19 patients are hooked up to a minimum of five electrical devices, she said, and if the virus-stricken patient needs high-pressure oxygen or a ventilator, the number of electrical devices could be two or three times that number. “You name it, it plugs in,” she said.  

Today In: Energy

The virus has infected some 2.2 million people around the world and killed more than 150,000,including more than 32,000 people here in the U.S. While those numbers are frightening, it is apparent that the toll would be far higher without adequate supplies of reliable electricity. Modern healthcare systems depend on electricity. Hospitals are particularly big consumers. Power demand in hospitals is about 36 watts per square meter, which is about six times higher than the electricity load in a typical American home, and utilities are turning to AI to adapt to electricity demands during surges. 

Beating the coronavirus is all about electricity. Indeed, nearly every aspect of coronavirus detection, testing, and treatment requires juice. Second, it appears that the virus is more deadly in places where electricity is scarce or unreliable. Finally, if there are power outages in virus hotspots or hospitals, a real risk in a grid with more blackouts than other developed countries, the damage will be even more severe. 

As my nurse friend in Ventura County made clear, her ability to provide high-quality care for patients is wholly dependent on reliable electricity. The thermometers used to check for fever are powered by electricity. The monitors she uses to keep track of her patients, as well as her Vocera, the walkie-talkie that she uses to communicate with her colleagues, runs on batteries. Testing for the virus requires electricity. One virus-testing machine, Abbott Labs’ m2000, is a 655-pound appliance that, according to its specification sheet, runs on either 120 or 240 volts of electricity. The operating manual for a ventilator made by Hamilton Medical is chock full of instructions relating to electricity, including how to manage the machine’s batteries and alarms. 

While it may be too soon to make a direct connection between lack of electricity and the lethality of the coronavirus, the early signs from the Navajo reservation indicate that energy poverty amplifies the danger. The sprawling reservation has about 175,000 residents, but it has a higher death toll from the virus than 13 states. About 10 percent of Navajos do not have electricity in their homes and more than 30 percent lack indoor plumbing. 

The death rate from the virus on the reservation now stands at 3.4 percent, which is nearly twice the global average. In the middle of last week, the entire population of Native American tribes in the U.S. accounted for about 1,100 confirmed cases of the virus and about 44 deaths. Navajos accounted for the majority of those, with 830 confirmed cases of coronavirus and 28 deaths. 

On Saturday night, the Navajo Times reported a major increase, with 1,197 positive cases of COVID-19 on the reservation and 44 deaths. Other factors may contribute to the high infection and mortality rates on the reservation, including  high rates of diabetes, obesity, and crowded residential living situations. That said, electricity and water are essential to good hygiene and health authorities say that frequent hand washing helps cut the risk of contracting the virus. 

The devastation happening on Navajoland provides a window into what may happen in crowded, electricity-poor countries like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. It also shows what could happen if a tornado or hurricane were to wipe out the electric grid in virus hotspots like New Orleans, as extreme weather increasingly afflicts the grid nationwide. Sure, most American hospitals have backup generators to help assure reliable power. But those generators can fail. Further, they usually burn diesel fuel which needs to be replenished every few days. 

The essential point here is that our hospitals and critical health care machines aren’t running on solar panels and batteries. Instead, they are running on grid power that’s being provided by reliable sources — coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear power — which together produce about 89 percent of the electricity consumed in this country, even as Russian hacking of utilities highlights cyber risks. The pandemic — which is inflicting trillions of dollars of damage on our economy and tens of thousands of deaths — underscores the criticality of abundant and reliable electricity to our society and the tremendous damage that would occur if our health care infrastructure were to be hit by extended blackouts during the fight to stop COVID-19.

In a follow-up interview on Saturday with my friend, C., she told me that while caring for patients, she and her colleagues “are entirely dependent on electricity. We take it for granted. It’s a hidden assumption in our work,” a reminder echoed by a grid report card that warns of dangerous vulnerabilities. She quickly added she and her fellow nurses “aren’t trained or equipped to deal with circumstances that would come with shoddy power. If we lost power completely, people will die.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hydro One Rate Hike reflects Ontario Energy Board approval for higher delivery charges, impacting seasonal customers more than residential classes, funding infrastructure upgrades like wood pole and transformer replacements across Ontario's medium-density service areas.

Key Points

The Hydro One rate hike is an OEB-approved delivery charge increase to fund upgrades, with impacts on seasonal users.

✅ OEB-approved delivery rate increases retroactive to 2018

✅ Seasonal customers see larger monthly bill impacts than residential

✅ Funds pole, transformer replacements and tree trimming work

Hydro One seasonal customers will face bigger increases in their bills than the utility's residential customers as a result of an Ontario Energy Board approval of a rate hike, a topic drawing attention from a utilities watchdog in other provinces as well.

Hydro One received permission to increase its delivery charge, as large projects like the Meaford hydro generation proposal are considered across Ontario, retroactive to last year.

It says it needs the money to maintain and upgrade its infrastructure, including efforts to adapt to climate change, much of which was installed in the 1950s.

The utility is notifying customers that new statements reflect higher delivery rates which were not charged in 2018 and the first half of this year, due to delay in receiving the OEB's permission, similar to delays that can follow an energy board recommendation in other jurisdictions.

The amount that customers' bills will increase by depends not only on how much electricity they use, but also on which rate class they belong to, as well as policy decisions affecting remote connections such as the First Nations electricity line in northern Ontario.

For seasonal customers such as summer cottage owners, the impact on a typical user's bill will be 2.9 per cent more per month for 2018, and 1.7 per cent per month for 2019.

There will be further increases of 1.0 per cent, 1.4 per cent and 1.1 per cent per month in 2020, 2021 and 2022 respectively. 

Typical residential customers will experience smaller increases or rate freezes over the same period.

In the residential medium density class, the rate changes are a 2.0 per cent increase for last year, a decrease of 0.5 per cent this year, and an increase of 0.5 per cent in 2021. There will be no increases in 2020 and 2022.

Seasonal Rate Class — Estimated bill impact per month

2018 - 2.9 %

2019 - 1.7%

2020 - 1.0%

2021 - 1.4%

2022 - 1.1%

Residential Medium Density Rate Class — Estimated bill impact per month

2018 - 2.0%

2019 - -0.5% decrease

2020 - 0.0%

2021 - 0.5%

2022 - 0.0%

A Hydro One spokesperson told tbnewswatch.com that over the next three years, the utility's upgrading plan includes reliability investments such as replacing more than 24,000 wood poles across the province as well as numerous transformers.

In the Thunder Bay area, the spokesperson said, some of the revenue generated by the higher delivery rates will cover the cost of replacing more than 180 poles and trimming hazardous trees around 3,200 kilometres of overhead power lines while sharing electrical safety tips with customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Electricity Investment Surpasses Oil and Gas 2016, driven by renewable energy, power grids, and energy efficiency, as IEA reports lower oil and gas spending, rising solar and wind capacity, and declining coal power plant approvals.

Key Points

A 2016 milestone where electricity topped global energy investment, led by renewables, grids, and efficiency, per the IEA.

✅ IEA: electricity investment hit $718b; oil and gas fell to $650b.

✅ Renewables led with $297b; solar and wind unit costs declined.

✅ Coal plant approvals plunged; networks and storage spending rose.

Investments in electricity surpassed those in oil and gas for the first time ever in 2016 on a spending splurge on renewable energy and power grids as the fall in crude prices led to deep cuts, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said.

Total energy investment fell for the second straight year by 12 per cent to US$1.7 trillion compared with 2015, the IEA said. Oil and gas investments plunged 26 per cent to US$650 billion, down by over a quarter in 2016, and electricity generation slipped 5 per cent.

"This decline (in energy investment) is attributed to two reasons," IEA chief economist Laszlo Varro told journalists.

"The reaction of the oil and gas industry to the prolonged period of low oil prices which was a period of harsh investment cuts; and technological progress which is reducing investment costs in both renewable power and in oil and gas," he said.

Oil and gas investment is expected to rebound modestly by 3 per cent in 2017, driven by a 53 per cent upswing in U.S. shale, and spending in Russia and the Middle East, the IEA said in a report.

"The rapid ramp up of U.S. shale activities has triggered an increase of U.S. shale costs of 16 per cent in 2017 after having almost halved from 2014-16," the report said.

The global electricity sector, however, was the largest recipient of energy investment in 2016 for the first time ever, overtaking oil, gas and coal combined, the report said.

"Robust investments in renewable energy and increased spending in electricity networks, which supports the outlook that low-emissions sources will cover most demand growth, made electricity the biggest area of capital investments," Varro said.

Electricity investment worldwide was US$718 billion, lifted by higher spending in power grids which offset the fall in power generation investments.

"Investment in new renewables-based power capacity, at US$297 billion, remained the largest area of electricity spending, despite falling back by 3 per cent as clean energy investment in developing nations slipped, the report said."

Although renewables investments was 3 per cent lower than five years ago, capacity additions were 50 per cent higher and expected output from this capacity about 35 per cent higher, thanks to the fall in unit costs and technology improvements in solar PV and wind generation, the IEA said.

COAL INVESTMENT IS COMING TO AN END

Investments in coal-fired electricity plants fell sharply. Sanctioning of new coal power plants fell to the lowest level in nearly 15 years, reflecting concerns about local air pollution, and emergence of overcapacity and competition from renewables, with renewables poised to eclipse coal in global power generation, notably in China. Coal investments, however, grew in India.

"Coal investment is coming to an end. At the very least, it is coming to a pause," Varro said.

The IEA report said energy efficiency investments continued to expand in 2016, reaching US$231 billion, with most of it going to the building sector globally.

Electric vehicles sales rose 38 per cent in 2016 to 750,000 vehicles at $6 billion, and represented 10 per cent of all transport efficiency spending. Some US$6 billion was spent globally on electronic vehicle charging stations, the IEA said.

Spending on electricity networks and storage continued the steady rise of the past five years, as surging electricity demand puts power systems under strain, reaching an all-time high of US$277 billion in 2016, with 30 per cent of the expansion driven by China’s spending in its distribution system, the report said.

China led the world in energy investments with 21 per cent of global total share, the report said, driven by low-carbon electricity supply and networks projects.

Although oil and gas investments fell in the United States in 2016, its total energy investments rose 16 per cent, even as Americans use less electricity in recent years, on the back of spending in renewables projects, the IEA report said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario SMR BWRX-300 leads Canada in next-gen nuclear energy at Darlington, with GE Vernova and Hitachi, delivering clean, reliable power via modular design, passive safety, scalability, and lower costs for grid integration.

Key Points

Ontario SMR BWRX-300 is a 300 MW modular boiling water reactor at Darlington with passive safety and clean power.

✅ 300 MW BWR supplies power for about 300,000 homes

✅ Passive safety enables safe shutdown without external power

✅ Modular design reduces costs and speeds grid integration

Ontario has initiated the construction of Canada's first small modular nuclear reactor (SMR), supported by OPG's SMR commitment to deployment, marking a significant milestone in the province's energy strategy. This development positions Ontario at the forefront of next-generation nuclear technology within the G7 nations.

The project, known as the Darlington New Nuclear Project, is being led by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in collaboration with GE Vernova and Hitachi Nuclear Energy, and through its OPG-TVA partnership on new nuclear technology development. The chosen design is the BWRX-300, a 300-megawatt boiling water reactor that is approximately one-tenth the size and complexity of traditional nuclear reactors. The first unit is expected to be operational by 2029, with plans for additional units to follow.

Each BWRX-300 reactor is projected to supply electricity to about 300,000 homes, contributing to Ontario's efforts, which include the decision to refurbish Pickering B for additional baseload capacity, to meet the anticipated 75% increase in electricity demand by 2050. The compact design of the SMR allows for easier integration into existing infrastructure, reducing the need for extensive new transmission lines.

The economic impact of the project is substantial. The construction of four such reactors is expected to create up to 18,000 jobs and contribute approximately $38.5 billion CAD to the Canadian economy, reflecting the economic benefits of nuclear projects over 65 years. The modular nature of SMRs also allows for scalability, with each additional unit potentially reducing costs through economies of scale.

Safety is a paramount consideration in the design of the BWRX-300. The reactor employs passive safety features, meaning it can safely shut down without the need for external power or operator intervention. This design enhances the reactor's resilience to potential emergencies, aligning with stringent regulatory standards.

Ontario's commitment to nuclear energy is further demonstrated by its plans for four SMRs at the Darlington site. This initiative reflects a broader strategy to diversify the province's energy mix, incorporating clean and reliable power sources to complement renewable energy efforts.

While the development of SMRs in Ontario is a significant step forward, it also aligns with the Canadian nuclear initiative positioning Canada as a leader in the global nuclear energy landscape. The successful implementation of the BWRX-300 could serve as a model for other nations exploring advanced nuclear technologies.

Ontario's groundbreaking work on small modular nuclear reactors represents a forward-thinking approach to energy generation. By embracing innovative technologies, the province is not only addressing future energy demands but also, through the Pickering NGS life extension, contributing to the global transition towards sustainable and secure energy solutions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California energy rebate freeze disrupts heat pump incentives, HVAC upgrades, and climate funding, as federal uncertainty stalls Inflation Reduction Act support, delaying home electrification, energy efficiency gains, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions statewide.

Key Points

A statewide pause on $290M incentives for heat pumps and HVAC upgrades due to federal climate funding uncertainty.

✅ $290M program paused amid federal funding freeze

✅ Heat pump, HVAC, electrification upgrades delayed

✅ Previously approved rebates honored; new apps halted

California’s push for a more energy-efficient future has hit a significant roadblock as the state pauses a $290 million rebate program aimed at helping homeowners replace inefficient heating and cooling systems with more energy-efficient alternatives. The California Energy Commission announced the suspension of the program, citing uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze funding for various climate-related initiatives.

The Halted Program

The energy rebate program, which utilizes federal funding to encourage the use of energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps, was a crucial part of California’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing financial incentives for homeowners to upgrade to more efficient heating and cooling systems, the program aimed to make green energy solutions more accessible and affordable to residents. The rebate program had been popular, with many homeowners eager to participate in the initiative to lower their energy costs and improve the sustainability of their homes.

However, due to the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the California Energy Commission announced on Monday that it would no longer be accepting new applications for the program. The agency did clarify that it would continue to honor rebates for applications that had already been approved. The pause will remain in effect until the Trump administration provides more clarity regarding the program's future funding.

The Trump Administration’s Role

This move highlights a broader issue regarding access to federal funding for state-level energy programs. The Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding for climate-related initiatives has left many states in limbo, as previously approved federal money has not been distributed as expected. Despite federal court rulings directing the Trump administration to restore these funds, states like California are still struggling to navigate the uncertainty of climate-related financial support from the federal government.

California’s decision to pause the rebate program comes after similar actions by other states. Arizona paused a similar program just a week prior, and Rhode Island had already paused new applications earlier this year. These states are all recipients of funding from a larger $4.3 billion initiative under the Inflation Reduction Act, which is designed to help homeowners purchase energy-efficient appliances like heat pumps, water heaters, and electric cooktops.

Impact of the Freeze

The pause of California's rebate program has serious implications for both consumers and the state’s energy goals. For residents, the halt means delays in the ability to upgrade to more energy-efficient home systems, which could lead to higher energy costs in the short term, a concern amid soaring electricity prices across the state.

The $290 million program was a significant step in encouraging homeowners to invest in energy efficiency, and its suspension leaves a gap in the availability of resources for those who were hoping to make energy-saving upgrades. Many of these upgrades are not just beneficial to homeowners, but they also contribute to the state’s overall energy efficiency goals, helping to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources, even as California's dependence on fossil fuels persists, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal and State Tensions

The freeze in funding is just one of many points of tension between the Trump administration and states like California, which have pursued aggressive environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions and combating climate change. California has often found itself at odds with the federal government on environmental issues, especially under the leadership of President Trump. The state’s ambitious environmental policies have sometimes clashed with the federal government's approach, including efforts to wind down its fossil fuel industry in line with climate goals.

In this case, the freeze on climate-related funding appears to be part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to limit federal spending on environmental programs, and as regulators weigh whether the state may need more power plants, planning remains complex. While the freeze impacts states that are working to transition to clean energy, critics argue that such moves undermine efforts to tackle climate change and could slow down progress toward a greener future.

The Path Forward

For California, the next steps will depend heavily on the actions of the federal government. While the state can continue to push for climate funding in the courts, the lack of clarity around the release of federal funds creates uncertainty for state programs that rely on these resources. As California continues to navigate this funding freeze, it will need to explore alternative solutions to keep its energy efficiency programs on track, such as efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid, even in the face of federal challenges.

In the meantime, California residents and homeowners who were hoping to take advantage of the rebate program may have to wait until further clarification from the federal government is provided, even as officials warn of a looming electricity shortage in coming years. Whether the program can be restored or expanded in the future remains to be seen, but for now, the pause serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles that states face when dealing with shifting federal priorities.

As the issue unfolds, other states facing similar challenges may take cues from California’s actions, and with California exporting energy policies to Western states, broader conversations about how federal and state governments can collaborate to ensure that energy efficiency initiatives and climate goals are not sidelined due to political or budgetary differences.

California’s decision to pause its $290 million energy rebate program is a significant development in the ongoing struggle between state and federal governments over climate-related funding. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration’s freeze on energy efficiency programs has led to disruptions in state-level efforts to promote sustainability and reduce emissions. As the situation continues to evolve, both California and other states will need to consider how to move forward without relying on federal funding that may or may not be available in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News