Officials say Constellation stuck with ruling

Income Graduated Fixed Charge aligns CPUC billing with utility fixed costs, lowers usage rates, supports electrification, and shifts California investor-owned utilities' electric bills by income, with CARE and Climate Credit offsets for low-income households.

Key Points

A CPUC proposal: an income-based monthly fixed fee with lower usage rates to align costs and aid low-income customers.

✅ Income-tiered fixed fees: $0-$42; CARE: $14-$22, by utility territory

✅ Usage rates drop 16%-22% to support electrification and cost-reflective billing

✅ Lowest-income save ~$10-$20; some higher earners pay ~$10+ more monthly

The Public Advocates Office (PAO) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed adding a monthly income-based fixed charge on electric utility bills based on income level.  

The rate change is designed to lower bills for the lowest-income residents while aligning billing more directly with utility costs. 

PAO’s recommendation for the Income Graduated Fixed Charge places fees between $22 and $42 per month in the three major investor-owned utilities’ territories, including an SDG&E minimum charge debate under way, for customers not enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program. As seen below, CARE customers would be charged between $14 per month and $22 a month, depending on income level and territory.

For households earning $50,000 or less per year, the fixed charge would be $0, but only if the California Climate Credit is applied to offset the fixed cost.

Meanwhile, usage-based electricity rates are lowered in the PAO proposal, part of major changes to electric bills statewide. Average rates would be reduced between 16% to 22% for the three major investor-owned utilities.

The lowest-income bracket of Californians is expected to save roughly $10 to $20 a month under the proposal, while middle-income customers may see costs rise by about $20 a month, even as lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in Sacramento.

“We anticipate the vast majority of low-income customers ($50,000 or less per year) will have their monthly bills decrease by $10 or more, and a small proportion of the highest income earners ($100,000+ per year) will see their monthly bills rise by $10 or more,” said the PAO.

The charges are an effort to help suppress ever-increasing electricity generation and transmission rates, which are among the highest in the country, with soaring electricity prices reported across California. Rates are expected to rise sharply as wildfire mitigation efforts are implemented by the utilities found at fault for their origin.

“We are very concerned. However, we do not see the increases stopping at this point,” Linda Serizawa, deputy director for energy, PAO, told pv magazine. “We think the pace and scale of the [rate] increases is growing faster than we would have anticipated for several years now.”

Consumer advocates and regulators face calls for action on surging electricity bills across the state.

The proposed changes are also meant to more directly couple billing with the fixed charges that utilities incur, as California considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid. For example, activities like power line maintenance, energy efficiency programs, and wildfire prevention are not expected to vary with usage, so these activities would be funded through a fixed charge.

Michael Campbell of the PAO’s customer programs team, and leader of the proposed program, likened paying for grid enhancements and other social programs with utility rate increases to “paying for food stamps by taxing food.” Instead, a fixed charge would cover these costs.

PAO said the move to lower rates for usage should help encourage electrification as California moves to replace heating and cooling, appliances, and gas combustion cars with electrified counterparts. In addition, lower rates mean the cost burden of running these devices is improved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hybrid renewable energy projects integrate wind, solar, and battery storage to enhance grid reliability, reduce curtailment, and provide dispatchable power in markets like Alberta, leveraging photovoltaic tracking, overbuilt transformers, and improved storage economics.

Key Points

Hybrid renewable energy projects combine wind, solar, and storage to deliver reliable, dispatchable clean power.

✅ Combine wind, solar, and batteries for steady, dispatchable output

✅ Lower curtailment by using shared transformers and smart inverters

✅ Boost farm income via leases; diversify risk from oil and gas

Third-generation farmer James Praskach has been burned by the oil and gas sector and watched wicked weather pound his crops flat, but he is hoping a new kind of energy -- the renewable kind -- will pay dividends.

The 39-year-old is part of a landowner consortium that is hosting the sprawling 300-megawatt Blackspring Ridge wind power project in southeastern Alberta.

He receives regular lease payments from the $600-million project that came online in 2014, even though none of the 166 towering wind turbines that surround his land are actually on it.

His lease payments stand to rise, however, when and if the proposed 77-MW Vulcan Solar project, which won regulatory approval in 2016, is green-lighted by developer EDF Renewables Inc.

The panels would cover about 400 hectares of his family's land with nearly 300,000 photovoltaic solar panels in Alberta, installed on racks designed to follow the sun. It would stand in the way of traditional grain farming of the land, but that wouldn't have been a problem this year, Praskach says.

"This year we actually had a massive storm roll through. And we had 100 per cent hail damage on all of (the Vulcan Solar lands). We had canola, peas and barley on it this year," he said, adding the crop was covered by insurance.

Meanwhile, poor natural gas prices and a series of oilpatch financial failures mean rents aren't being paid for about half of the handful of gas wells on his land, showing how a province that is a powerhouse for both fossil and green energy can face volatility -- he's appealed to the Alberta surface Rights Board for compensation.

"(Solar power) would definitely add a level of security for our farming operations," said Praskach.

Hybrid power projects that combine energy sources are a growing trend as selling renewable energy gains traction across markets. Solar only works during the day and wind only when it is windy so combining the two -- potentially with battery storage or natural gas or biomass generation -- makes the power profile more reliable and predictable.

Globally, an oft-cited example is on El Hierro, the smallest of the Canary Islands, where wind power is used to pump water uphill to a reservoir in a volcanic crater so that it can be released to provide hydroelectric power when needed. At times, the project has provided 100 per cent of the tiny island's energy needs.

Improvements in technology such as improving solar and wind power and lower costs for storage mean it is being considered as a hybrid add-on for nearly all of its renewable power projects, said Dan Cunningham, manager of business development at Greengate Power Corp. of Calgary.

Grant Arnold, CEO of developer BluEarth Renewables, agreed.

"The barrier to date, I would say, has been cost of storage but that is changing rapidly," he said. "We feel that wind and storage or solar and storage will be a fundamental way we do business within five years. It's changing very, very rapidly and it's the product everybody wants."

Vulcan Solar was proposed after Blackspring Ridge came online, said David Warner, associate director of business development for EDF Renewables, which now co-owns the wind farm with Enbridge Inc.

"Blackspring actually had incremental capacity in the main power transformers," he said. "Essentially, it was capable of delivering more energy than Blackspring was producing. It was overbuilt."

Vulcan Solar has been sized to utilize the shortfall without producing so much energy that either will ever have to be constrained, he said. Much of the required environmental work has already been done for the wind farm.

Storage is being examined as a potential addition to the project but implementing it depends on the regulatory system. At present, Alberta's regulators are still working on how to permit and control what they call "dispatchable renewables and storage" systems.

EDF announced last spring it would proceed with the Arrow Canyon Solar Project in Nevada which is to combine 200 MW of solar with 75 MW of battery storage by 2022 -- the batteries are to soak up the sun's power in the morning and dispatch the electricity in the afternoon when Las Vegas casinos' air conditioning is most needed.

What is clear is that renewable energy will continue to grow, with Alberta renewable jobs expected to follow -- in a recent report, the International Energy Agency said global electricity capacity from renewables is set to rise by 50 per cent over the next five years, an increase equivalent to adding the current total power capacity of the United States.

The share of renewables is expected to rise from 26 per cent now to 30 per cent in 2024 but will remain well short of what is needed to meet long-term climate, air quality and energy access goals, it added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

PG&E Camp Fire Guilty Plea underscores involuntary manslaughter charges as the utility admits sparking Paradise's wildfire; Butte County prosecution, CAL FIRE findings, bankruptcy oversight, victim compensation trust, and safety reforms shape accountability.

Key Points

The legal admission by PG&E to 84 involuntary manslaughter counts and unlawfully starting the 2018 Camp Fire.

✅ 84 involuntary manslaughter counts; unlawful ignition admitted.

✅ $3,486,950 fine, $500,000 DA costs; no prison terms.

✅ $13.5B victim trust, Paradise and Butte County payments.

California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company pleaded guilty Tuesday to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of unlawfully starting the Camp Fire, the deadliest blaze in the state's history.

Butte County District Attorney Michael L. Ramsey said the "historic moment" should be a signal that corporations will be held responsible for "recklessly endangering" lives.
The 84 people "did not need to die," Ramsey said. He said the deaths were "of the most unimaginable horror, being burned to death."

Before sentencing, survivors will testify Wednesday about the losses of their loved ones, and many have pursued lawsuits against the utility seeking accountability.

No individuals will be sent to prison, Ramsey said.

"This is the first time that PG&E or any major utility has been charged with homicide as the result of a reckless fire. It killed a town," Ramsey said, referring to Paradise, which was annihilated by the blaze.
According to court documents filed in March, the company will be fined "no more than $3,486,950," and it must reimburse the Butte County District Attorney's Office $500,000 for the costs of its investigation into the blaze, and under separate oversight a federal judge ordered dividends to be directed to wildfire risk reduction to prioritize safety.

Among other provisions, PG&E must establish a trust, compensating victims of the 2018 Camp Fire and other wildfires to the tune of $13.5 billion as part of its bankruptcy plan, according to the plea agreement included in a regulatory filing.
It has to pay hundreds of millions to the town of Paradise and Butte County and cooperate with prosecutors' investigation, the plea deal says.
PG&E also waived its right to appeal.

"I have heard the pain and the anguish of victims as they've described the loss they continue to endure, and the wounds that can't be healed," PG&E Corporation CEO and President Bill Johnson said after the plea. "No words from me could ever reduce the magnitude of such devastation or do anything to repair the damage. But I hope that the actions we are taking here today will help bring some measure of peace, including aid through a Wildfire Assistance Program the company announced."

Johnson was in court Tuesday, where Butte County Superior Court Judge Michael Deems read the names of each victim as their photos were shown on a screen, CNN affiliate KTLA reported.
Johnson said the utility would never put profits ahead of safety again. He told the judge that PG&E took responsibility for the devastation "with eyes wide open to what happened and to what must never happen again," KTLA reported.

In March, the utility and the state agreed to bankruptcy terms, which included an overhaul of PG&E's board selection process, financial structure and oversight, with rates expected to stabilize in 2025 as reforms take hold.
According to investigators with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, PG&E was responsible for the devastating Camp Fire.

Electrical lines owned and operated by PG&E started the fire November 8, 2018, CAL Fire said in a news release, after the company acknowledged its power lines may have started two fires that day.

"The tinder dry vegetation and Red Flag conditions consisting of strong winds, low humidity and warm temperatures promoted this fire and caused extreme rates of spread," CAL Fire said.
PG&E had previously said it was "probable" that its equipment started the Camp Fire but that it wasn't conclusive whether its lines ignited a second fire, as CAL Fire alleged.
The power company filed for bankruptcy in January 2019 as it came under pressure from billions of dollars in claims tied to deadly wildfires, and other utilities such as Southern California Edison have faced similar lawsuits.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Home Energy Independence reduces electricity costs and outage risks with solar panels, EV charging, battery storage, net metering, and smart inverters, helping homeowners offset tiered rates and improve grid resilience and reliability.

Key Points

Home Energy Independence pairs solar, batteries, and smart EV charging to lower bills and keep power on during outages.

✅ Offset rising electricity rates via solar and net metering

✅ Add battery storage for backup power and peak shaving

✅ Optimize EV charging to avoid tiered rate penalties

The Department of Energy recently warned that two-thirds of the U.S. is at risk of losing power this summer. It’s an increasingly common refrain: Homeowners want to be less reliant on the aging power grid and don’t want to be at the mercy of electric utilities due to rising energy costs and dwindling faith in the power grid’s reliability.

And it makes sense. While the inflated price of eggs and butter made headlines earlier this year, electricity prices quietly increased at twice the rate of overall inflation in 2022, even as studies indicate renewables aren’t making power more expensive overall, and homeowners have taken notice. In fact, according to Aurora Solar’s Industry Snapshot, 62% expect energy prices will continue to rise.

Homeowners aren’t just frustrated that electricity is pricey when they need it, they’re also worried it won’t be available at all when they feel the most vulnerable. Nearly half (48%) of homeowners are concerned about power outages stemming from weather events, or grid imbalances from excess solar in some regions, followed closely by outages due to cyberattacks on the power grid.

These concerns around reliability and cost are creating a deep lack of confidence in the power grid. Yet, despite these growing concerns, homeowners are increasingly using electricity to displace other fuel sources.

The electrification of everything
From electric heat pumps to electric stoves and clothes dryers, homeowners are accelerating the electrification of their homes. Perhaps the most exciting example is electric vehicle (EV) adoption and the need for home charging. With major vehicle makers committing to ambitious electric vehicle targets and even going all-electric in the future, EVs are primed to make an even bigger splash in the years to come.

The by-product of this electrification movement is, of course, higher electric bills because of increased consumption. Homeowners also risk paying more for every unit of energy they use if they’re part of a tiered pricing utility structure, where energy-insecure households often pay 27% more on electricity because customers are charged different rates based on the total amount of energy they use. Many new electric vehicle owners don’t realize this until they are deep into purchasing their new vehicle, or even when they open that first electric bill after the car is in their driveway.

Sure, this electrification movement can feel counterintuitive given the power grid concerns. But it’s actually the first step toward energy independence, and emerging models like peer-to-peer energy sharing could amplify that over time.

Balancing conflicting movements
The fact is that electrification is moving forward quickly, even among homeowners who are concerned about electricity prices and power grid reliability, and about why the grid isn’t yet 100% renewable in the U.S. This has the potential to lead to even more discontent with electric utilities and growing anxiety over access to electricity in extreme situations. There is a third trend, though, that can help reconcile these two conflicting movements: the growth of solar.

The popularity of solar is likely higher than you think: Nearly 77% of homeowners either have solar panels on their homes or are interested in purchasing solar. The Aurora Solar Industry Snapshot report also showed a nearly 40% year-over-year increase in residential solar projects across the U.S. in 2022, as the country moves toward 30% power from wind and solar overall, aligning with the Solar Energy Industries Association’s (SEIA) Solar Market Insight Report, which found, “Residential solar had a record year [in 2022] with nearly 6 GWdc of installations, representing 40% growth over 2021.”

It makes sense that finding ways to tamp down—even eliminate—growing bills caused by the electrification of homes is accelerating interest in solar, as more households weigh whether residential solar is worth it for their budgets, and residential solar installers are seeing this firsthand. The link between EVs and solar is a great proof point: Almost 80% of solar professionals said EV adoption often drives new interest in solar. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

TTC Winter E-Bike and E-Scooter Ban addresses lithium-ion battery safety, mitigating fire risk on Toronto public transit during cold weather across buses, subways, and streetcars, while balancing micro-mobility access, infrastructure gaps, and evolving regulations.

Key Points

A seasonal TTC policy limiting lithium-ion e-bikes and scooters on transit in winter to cut battery fire risk.

✅ Targets lithium-ion fire hazards in confined transit spaces

✅ Applies Nov-Mar across buses, subways, and streetcars

✅ Sparks debate on equity, accessibility, and policy alternatives

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Board recently voted to implement a ban on lithium-ion-powered electric bikes (e-bikes) and electric scooters during the winter months, a decision that reflects growing safety concerns. This new policy has generated significant debate within the city, particularly regarding the role of these transportation modes in the lives of Torontonians, and the potential risks posed by the technology during cold weather.

A Growing Safety Concern

The move to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters from TTC services during the winter months stems from increasing safety concerns related to battery fires. Lithium-ion batteries, commonly used in e-bikes and scooters, are known to pose a fire risk, especially in colder temperatures, and as systems like Metro Vancouver's battery-electric buses expand, robust safety practices are paramount. In recent years, Toronto has experienced several high-profile incidents involving fires caused by these batteries. In some cases, these fires have occurred on TTC property, including on buses and subway cars, raising alarm among transit officials.

The TTC Board's decision was largely driven by the fear that the cold temperatures during winter months could make lithium-ion batteries more prone to malfunction, leading to potential fires. These batteries are particularly vulnerable to damage when exposed to low temperatures, which can cause them to overheat or fail during charging or use. Since public transit systems are densely populated and rely on close quarters, the risk of a battery fire in a confined space such as a bus or subway is considered too high.

The New Ban

The new rule, which is expected to take effect in the coming months, will prohibit e-bikes and scooters powered by lithium-ion batteries from being brought onto TTC vehicles, including buses, streetcars, and subway trains, even as the agency rolls out battery electric buses across its fleet, during the winter months. While the TTC had previously allowed passengers to bring these devices on board, it had issued warnings regarding their safety. The policy change reflects a more cautious approach to mitigating risk in light of growing concerns.

The winter months, typically from November to March, are when these batteries are at their most vulnerable. In addition to environmental factors, the challenges posed by winter weather—such as snow, ice, and the damp conditions—can exacerbate the potential for damage to these devices. The TTC Board hopes the new ban will prevent further incidents and keep transit riders safe.

Pushback and Debate

Not everyone agrees with the TTC Board's decision. Some residents and advocacy groups have expressed concern that this ban unfairly targets individuals who rely on e-bikes and scooters as an affordable and sustainable mode of transportation, while international examples like Paris's e-scooter vote illustrate how contentious rental devices can be elsewhere, adding fuel to the debate. E-bikes, in particular, have become a popular choice among commuters who want an eco-friendly alternative to driving, especially in a city like Toronto, where traffic congestion can be severe.

Advocates argue that instead of an outright ban, the TTC should invest in safer infrastructure, such as designated storage areas for e-bikes and scooters, or offer guidelines on how to safely store and transport these devices during winter, and, in assessing climate impacts, consider Canada's electricity mix alongside local safety measures. They also point out that other forms of electric transportation, such as electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters, are not subject to the same restrictions, raising questions about the fairness of the new policy.

In response to these concerns, the TTC has assured the public that it remains committed to finding alternative solutions that balance safety with accessibility. Transit officials have stated that they will continue to monitor the situation and consider adjustments to the policy if necessary.

Broader Implications for Transportation in Toronto

The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters is part of a broader conversation about the future of transportation in urban centers like Toronto. The rise of electric micro-mobility devices has been seen as a step toward reducing carbon emissions and addressing the city’s growing congestion issues, aligning with Canada's EV goals that push for widespread adoption. However, as more people turn to e-bikes and scooters for daily commuting, concerns about safety and infrastructure have become more pronounced.

The city of Toronto has yet to roll out comprehensive regulations for electric scooters and bikes, and this issue is further complicated by the ongoing push for sustainable urban mobility and pilots like driverless electric shuttles that test new models. While transit authorities grapple with safety risks, the public is increasingly looking for ways to integrate these devices into a broader, more holistic transportation system that prioritizes both convenience and safety.

The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters during the winter months is a necessary step to address growing safety concerns in Toronto's public transit system. Although the decision has been met with some resistance, it highlights the ongoing challenges in managing the growing use of electric transportation in urban environments, where initiatives like TTC's electric bus fleet offer lessons on scaling safely. With winter weather exacerbating the risks associated with lithium-ion batteries, the policy seeks to reduce the chances of fires and ensure the safety of all transit users. As the city moves forward, it will need to find ways to balance innovation with public safety to create a more sustainable and safe urban transportation network.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News