TVA had early look at report: watchdog group

Infrastructure Security Algorithm prioritizes cyber defense for power grids and critical infrastructure, mitigating ransomware, blackout risks, and cascading failures by guiding utilities, regulators, and cyber insurers on optimal security investment allocation.

Key Points

An algorithm that optimizes security spending to cut ransomware and blackout risks across critical infrastructure.

✅ Guides utilities on optimal security allocation

✅ Uses incentives to correct human risk biases

✅ Prioritizes assets to prevent cascading outages

Millions of people could suddenly lose electricity if a ransomware attack just slightly tweaked energy flow onto the U.S. power grid, as past US utility intrusions have shown.

No single power utility company has enough resources to protect the entire grid, but maybe all 3,000 of the grid's utilities could fill in the most crucial security gaps if there were a map showing where to prioritize their security investments.

Purdue University researchers have developed an algorithm to create that map. Using this tool, regulatory authorities or cyber insurance companies could establish a framework for protecting the U.S. power grid that guides the security investments of power utility companies to parts of the grid at greatest risk of causing a blackout if hacked.

Power grids are a type of critical infrastructure, which is any network - whether physical like water systems or virtual like health care record keeping - considered essential to a country's function and safety. The biggest ransomware attacks in history have happened in the past year, affecting most sectors of critical infrastructure in the U.S. such as grain distribution systems in the food and agriculture sector and the Colonial Pipeline, which carries fuel throughout the East Coast, prompting increased military preparation for grid hacks in the U.S.

With this trend in mind, Purdue researchers evaluated the algorithm in the context of various types of critical infrastructure in addition to the power sector, including electricity-sector IoT devices that interface with grid operations. The goal is that the algorithm would help secure any large and complex infrastructure system against cyberattacks.

"Multiple companies own different parts of infrastructure. When ransomware hits, it affects lots of different pieces of technology owned by different providers, so that's what makes ransomware a problem at the state, national and even global level," said Saurabh Bagchi, a professor in the Elmore Family School of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security at Purdue. "When you are investing security money on large-scale infrastructures, bad investment decisions can mean your power grid goes out, or your telecommunications network goes out for a few days."

Protecting infrastructure from hacks by improving security investment decisions

The researchers tested the algorithm in simulations of previously reported hacks to four infrastructure systems: a smart grid, industrial control system, e-commerce platform and web-based telecommunications network. They found that use of this algorithm results in the most optimal allocation of security investments for reducing the impact of a cyberattack.

The team's findings appear in a paper presented at this year's IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, the premier conference in the area of computer security. The team comprises Purdue professors Shreyas Sundaram and Timothy Cason and former PhD students Mustafa Abdallah and Daniel Woods.

"No one has an infinite security budget. You must decide how much to invest in each of your assets so that you gain a bump in the security of the overall system," Bagchi said.

The power grid, for example, is so interconnected that the security decisions of one power utility company can greatly impact the operations of other electrical plants. If the computers controlling one area's generators don't have adequate security protection, as seen when Russian hackers accessed control rooms at U.S. utilities, then a hack to those computers would disrupt energy flow to another area's generators, forcing them to shut down.

Since not all of the grid's utilities have the same security budget, it can be hard to ensure that critical points of entry to the grid's controls get the most investment in security protection.

The algorithm that Purdue researchers developed would incentivize each security decision maker to allocate security investments in a way that limits the cumulative damage a ransomware attack could cause. An attack on a single generator, for instance, would have less impact than an attack on the controls for a network of generators, which sophisticated grid-disruption malware can target at scale, rather than for the protection of a single generator.

Building an algorithm that considers the effects of human behavior

Bagchi's research shows how to increase cybersecurity in ways that address the interconnected nature of critical infrastructure but don't require an overhaul of the entire infrastructure system to be implemented.

As director of Purdue's Center for Resilient Infrastructures, Systems, and Processes, Bagchi has worked with the U.S. Department of Defense, Northrop Grumman Corp., Intel Corp., Adobe Inc., Google LLC and IBM Corp. on adopting solutions from his research. Bagchi's work has revealed the advantages of establishing an automatic response to attacks, and analyses like Symantec's Dragonfly report highlight energy-sector risks, leading to key innovations against ransomware threats, such as more effective ways to make decisions about backing up data.

There's a compelling reason why incentivizing good security decisions would work, Bagchi said. He and his team designed the algorithm based on findings from the field of behavioral economics, which studies how people make decisions with money.

"Before our work, not much computer security research had been done on how behaviors and biases affect the best defense mechanisms in a system. That's partly because humans are terrible at evaluating risk and an algorithm doesn't have any human biases," Bagchi said. "But for any system of reasonable complexity, decisions about security investments are almost always made with humans in the loop. For our algorithm, we explicitly consider the fact that different participants in an infrastructure system have different biases."

To develop the algorithm, Bagchi's team started by playing a game. They ran a series of experiments analyzing how groups of students chose to protect fake assets with fake investments. As in past studies in behavioral economics, they found that most study participants guessed poorly which assets were the most valuable and should be protected from security attacks. Most study participants also tended to spread out their investments instead of allocating them to one asset even when they were told which asset is the most vulnerable to an attack.

Using these findings, the researchers designed an algorithm that could work two ways: Either security decision makers pay a tax or fine when they make decisions that are less than optimal for the overall security of the system, or security decision makers receive a payment for investing in the most optimal manner.

"Right now, fines are levied as a reactive measure if there is a security incident. Fines or taxes don't have any relationship to the security investments or data of the different operators in critical infrastructure," Bagchi said.

In the researchers' simulations of real-world infrastructure systems, the algorithm successfully minimized the likelihood of losing assets to an attack that would decrease the overall security of the infrastructure system.

Bagchi's research group is working to make the algorithm more scalable and able to adapt to an attacker who may make multiple attempts to hack into a system. The researchers' work on the algorithm is funded by the National Science Foundation, the Wabash Heartland Innovation Network and the Army Research Lab.

Cybersecurity is an area of focus through Purdue's Next Moves, a set of initiatives that works to address some of the greatest technology challenges facing the U.S. Purdue's cybersecurity experts offer insights and assistance to improve the protection of power plants, electrical grids and other critical infrastructure.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project faces NEB certificate review, with public hearings, Indigenous consultation, and cross-border approval weighing permit vs certificate timelines, potential land expropriation, and Hydro's 2020 in-service date for the 308-MW intertie.

Key Points

A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba and Minnesota, now under NEB review through a permit or certificate process.

✅ NEB recommends certificate with public hearings and cabinet approval

✅ Stakeholders cite land, health, and economic impacts along route

✅ Hydro targets May-June 2020 in-service despite review

A recommendation from the National Energy Board could push back the construction start date of a $453-million hydroelectric transmission line from Manitoba to Minnesota.

In a letter to federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, the regulatory agency recommends using a "certificate" approval process, which could take more time than the simpler "permit" process Manitoba Hydro favours.

The certificate process involves public hearings, reflecting First Nations intervention seen in other power-line debates, to weigh the merits of the project, which would then go to the federal cabinet for approval.

The NEB says this process would allow for more procedural flexibility and "address Aboriginal concerns that may arise in the circumstances of this process."

The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project would provide the final link in a chain that brings hydroelectricity from generating stations in northern Manitoba, through the Bipole III transmission line and, like the New England Clean Power Link project, across the U.S. border as part of a 308-megawatt deal with the Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service.

When Hydro filed its application in December 2016, it had expected to have approval by the end of August 2017 and to begin construction on the line in mid-December, in order to have the line in operation by May or June 2020.  

Groups representing stakeholders along the proposed route of the transmission line had mixed reactions to the energy board's recommendation.

A lawyer representing a coalition of more than 120 landowners in the Rural Municipality of Taché and around La Broquerie, Man., welcomed the opportunity to have a more "fulsome" discussion about the project.

"I think it's a positive step. As people become more familiar with the project, the deficiencies with it become more obvious," said Kevin Toyne, who represents the Southeast Stakeholders Coalition.

Toyne said some coalition members are worried that Hydro will forcibly expropriate land in order to build the line, while others are worried about potential economic and health impacts of having the line so close to their homes. They have proposed moving the line farther east.

When the Clean Environment Commission — an arm's-length provincial government agency — held public hearings on the proposed route earlier this year, the coalition brought their concerns forward, echoing Site C opposition voiced by northerners, but Toyne says both the commission and Hydro ignored them.

Hydro still aiming for 2020 in-service date

The Manitoba Métis Federation also participated in those public hearings. MMF president David Chartrand worries about the impact a possible delay, as seen with the Site C work halt tied to treaty rights, could have on revenue from sales of hydroelectric power to the U.S.

"I know that a lot of money, billions have been invested on this line. And if the connection line is not done, then of course this will be sitting here, not gaining any revenue, which will affect every Métis in this province, given our Hydro bill's going to go up," Chartrand said.The NEB letter to Minister Carr requests that he "determine this matter in an expedited manner."

Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email that the Crown corporation will participate in whatever process, permit or certificate, the NEB takes.

"Manitoba Hydro does not have any information at this point in time that would change the estimated in-service date (May-June 2020) for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project," he said.

The federal government "is currently reviewing the NEB's recommendation to designate the project as subject to a certificate, which would result in public hearings," said Alexandre Deslongchamps, a spokesperson for Carr.

"Under the National Energy Board Act, an international power line requires either the approval by the NEB through a permit or approval by the Government of Canada by a certificate. Both must be issued by the NEB," he wrote in an email to CBC News.

By law, the certificate process is not to take longer than 15 months.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

U.S. Solar Generation 2017 surpassed biomass, delivering 77 million MWh versus 64 million MWh, trailing only hydro and wind; driven by PV expansion, capacity additions, and utility-scale and small-scale growth, per EIA.

Key Points

It was the year U.S. solar electricity exceeded biomass, hitting 77 million MWh and trailing only hydro and wind.

✅ Solar: 77 million MWh; Biomass: 64 million MWh (2017, EIA)

✅ PV expansion; late-year capacity additions dampen annual generation

✅ Hydro: 300 and wind: 254 million MWh; solar thermal ~3 million MWh

Electricity generation from solar resources in the United States reached 77 million megawatthours (MWh) in 2017, surpassing for the first time annual generation from biomass resources, which generated 64 million MWh in 2017. Among renewable sources, only hydro and wind generated more electricity in 2017, at 300 million MWh and 254 million MWh, respectively. Biomass generating capacity has remained relatively unchanged in recent years, while solar generating capacity has consistently grown.

Annual growth in solar generation often lags annual capacity additions because generating capacity tends to be added late in the year. For example, in 2016, 29% of total utility-scale solar generating capacity additions occurred in December, leaving few days for an installed project to contribute to total annual generation despite being counted in annual generating capacity additions. In 2017, December solar additions accounted for 21% of the annual total. Overall, solar technologies operate at lower annual capacity factors and experience more seasonal variation than biomass technologies.

Biomass electricity generation comes from multiple fuel sources, such as wood solids (68% of total biomass electricity generation in 2017), landfill gas (17%), municipal solid waste (11%), and other biogenic and nonbiogenic materials (4%).These shares of biomass generation have remained relatively constant in recent years, even as renewables' rise in 2020 across the grid.

Solar can be divided into three types: solar thermal, which converts sunlight to steam to produce power; large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV), which uses PV cells to directly produce electricity from sunlight; and small-scale solar, which are PV installations of 1 megawatt or smaller. Generation from solar thermal sources has remained relatively flat in recent years, at about 3 million MWh, even as renewables surpassed coal in 2022 nationwide. The most recent addition of solar thermal capacity was the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy plant installed in Nevada in 2015, and currently no solar thermal generators are under construction in the United States.

Solar photovoltaic systems, however, have consistently grown in recent years, as indicated by 2022 U.S. solar growth metrics across the sector. In 2014, large-scale solar PV systems generated 15 million MWh, and small-scale PV systems generated 11 million MWh. By 2017, annual electricity from those sources had increased to 50 million MWh and 24 million MWh, respectively, with projections that solar could reach 20% by 2050 in the U.S. mix. By the end of 2018, EIA expects an additional 5,067 MW of large-scale PV to come online, according to EIA’s Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory, with solar and storage momentum expected to accelerate. Information about planned small-scale PV systems (one megawatt and below) is not collected in that survey.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

London Underground Power Outage 2025 disrupted Tube lines citywide, with a National Grid voltage dip causing service suspensions, delays, and station closures; TfL recovery efforts spotlight infrastructure resilience, contingency planning, and commuter safety communications.

Key Points

A citywide Tube disruption on May 12, 2025, triggered by a National Grid voltage dip, exposing resilience gaps.

✅ Bakerloo, Waterloo & City, Northern suspended; Jubilee disrupted.

✅ Cause: brief National Grid fault leading to a voltage dip.

✅ TfL focuses on recovery, communication, and resilience upgrades.

On May 12, 2025, a significant power outage disrupted the London Underground during the afternoon rush hour, affecting thousands of commuters across the city. The incident highlighted vulnerabilities in the city's transport infrastructure, echoing a morning outage in London reported earlier, and raised concerns about the resilience of urban utilities.

The Outage and Its Immediate Impact

The power failure occurred around 2:30 PM, leading to widespread service suspensions and delays on several key Tube lines. The Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines were completely halted, while the Jubilee line experienced disruptions between London Bridge and Finchley Road. The Northern line was also suspended between Euston and Kennington, as well as south of Stockwell. Additionally, Elizabeth Line services between Abbey Wood and Paddington were suspended. Some stations were closed for safety reasons due to the lack of power.

Commuters faced severe delays, with many stranded in tunnels or on platforms. The lack of information and communication added to the confusion, as passengers were left uncertain about the cause and duration of the disruptions.

Cause of the Power Failure

Transport for London (TfL) attributed the outage to a brief fault in the National Grid's transmission network. Although the fault was resolved within seconds, it caused a voltage dip that affected local distribution networks, leading to the power loss in the Underground system.

The incident underscored the fragility of the city's transport infrastructure, particularly the aging electrical and signaling systems that are vulnerable to such faults, as well as weather-driven events like a major windstorm outage that can trigger cascading failures. While backup systems exist, their capacity to handle sudden disruptions remains a concern.

Broader Implications for Urban Infrastructure

This power outage is part of a broader pattern of infrastructure challenges facing London. In March 2025, a fire at an electrical substation in Hayes led to the closure of Heathrow Airport, affecting over 200,000 passengers, while similar disruptions at BWI Airport have underscored aviation vulnerabilities. These incidents have prompted discussions about the resilience of the UK's energy and transport networks.

Experts argue that aging infrastructure, coupled with increasing demand and climate-related stresses, poses significant risks to urban operations, as seen in a North Seattle outage and in Toronto storm-related outages that tested local grids. There is a growing call for investment in modernization and diversification of energy sources to ensure reliability and sustainability.

TfL's Response and Recovery Efforts

Following the outage, TfL worked swiftly to restore services. By 11 PM, all but one line had resumed operations, with only the Elizabeth Line continuing to experience severe delays. TfL officials acknowledged the inconvenience caused to passengers and pledged to investigate the incident thoroughly, similar to the Atlanta airport blackout inquiry conducted after a major outage, to prevent future occurrences.

In the aftermath, TfL emphasized the importance of clear communication with passengers during disruptions and committed to enhancing its contingency planning and infrastructure resilience.

Public Reaction and Ongoing Concerns

The power outage sparked frustration among commuters, many of whom took to social media to express their dissatisfaction, echoing sentiments during Houston's extended outage about communication gaps and delays. Some passengers reported being trapped in tunnels for extended periods without clear guidance from staff.

The incident has reignited debates about the adequacy of London's transport infrastructure and the need for comprehensive upgrades. While TfL has initiated reviews and improvement plans, the public remains concerned about the potential for future disruptions and the city's preparedness to handle them.

The May 12 power outage serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in urban infrastructure. As London continues to grow and modernize, ensuring the resilience of its transport and energy networks will be crucial. This includes investing in modern technologies, enhancing communication systems, and developing robust contingency plans to mitigate the impact of future disruptions. For now, Londoners are left reflecting on the lessons learned from this incident and hoping for a more reliable and resilient transport system in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News