Deal would provide N.Y. with N.J. power

Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways Program enables clean energy and grid modernization across Canada, funding wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and storage to cut GHG emissions and accelerate electrification toward a net-zero economy.

Key Points

A $964M Canadian program funding clean power and grid upgrades to cut emissions and build net-zero electrified economy.

✅ Funds wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and storage projects

✅ Modernizes grids for reliability, digitalization, and resilience

✅ Supports net-zero by 2050 with Indigenous and utility partners

Harnessing Canada's immense clean energy resources requires transformational investments to modernize our electricity grid. The Government of Canada is investing in renewable energy and upgrading the electricity grid, moving toward an electric, connected and clean economy, to make clean, affordable electricity options more accessible in communities across Canada.

The Honourable Seamus O'Regan Jr., Minister of Natural Resources, today launched a $964-million program, alongside a recent federal green electricity contract in Alberta that underscores momentum, to support smart renewable energy and grid modernization projects that will lower emissions by investing in clean energy technologies, like wind, solar, storage, hydro, geothermal and tidal energy across Atlantic Canada.

The Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways Program (SREPs) supports building Canada's low-emissions energy future and a renewable, electrified economy through projects that focus on non-emitting, cleaner energy technologies, such as storage, and modernizing electricity system operations.

Investing in these technologies reduces greenhouse gas emissions by creating a cleaner, more connected electrical system, supporting progress toward zero-emissions electricity by 2035 goals, while helping Canada reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Minister O'Regan launched the program during the Canadian Electricity Association's (CEA) virtual regulatory forum on Electricity Regulation & the Four Disruptors – Decarbonization, Decentralization, Digitalization and Democratization, highlighting evolving regulatory approaches as B.C. streamlines clean energy approvals to support deployment nationwide. The launch also coincides with Canadian Environment Week, which celebrates Canada's environmental accomplishments and encourages Canadians to contribute to conserving and protecting the environment.

Through SREPs and other programming, the government is working with provinces and territories, with the Prairie Provinces leading renewable growth in the years ahead, utilities, Indigenous partners and others, including diverse businesses and communities, to deliver these clean and reliable energy initiatives. With Canadian innovation, technology and skilled energy workers, we can provide more communities, households and businesses with an increased supply of clean electricity and a cleaner electrical grid.

To help interested stakeholders find information on SREPs, a new webpage has been launched, which includes a comprehensive guide for eligible projects.

This supports Canada's strengthened climate plan, A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy. Canada is advancing projects that support the clean grid of the future and seize opportunities in the global electricity market to boost competitiveness. Collectively with investments from the Fall Economic Statement 2020 and Budget 2021, Canada will achieve our climate change commitments and ensure a healthier environment and more prosperous economy for future generations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bright Feeds Solar Upgrade integrates a 300-kW DC PV system and 625 solar panels at the Berlin, CT plant, supplying one-third of power, cutting carbon emissions, and advancing clean, renewable energy in agriculture.

Key Points

An initiative powering Bright Feeds' Berlin plant with a 300-kW DC PV array, reducing costs and carbon emissions.

✅ 300-kW DC PV with 625 panels by Solect Energy

✅ Supplies ~33% of facility power; lowers operating costs

✅ Offsets 2,100+ tons CO2e; advances clean, sustainable agriculture

Bright Feeds, a New England-based startup, has successfully transitioned its Berlin, Connecticut, animal feed production facility to solar energy. The company installed a 300-kilowatt direct current (DC) solar photovoltaic (PV) system at its 25,000-square-foot plant, mirroring progress seen at projects like the Arvato solar plant in advancing onsite generation. This move aligns with Bright Feeds' commitment to sustainability and reducing its carbon footprint.

Solar Installation Details

The solar system comprises 625 solar panels and was developed and installed by Solect Energy, a Massachusetts-based company, reflecting momentum as projects like Building Energy's launch come online nationwide. Over its lifetime, the system is projected to offset more than 2,100 tons of carbon emissions, contributing significantly to the company's environmental goals. This initiative not only reduces energy expenses but also supports Bright Feeds' mission to promote clean energy solutions in the agricultural sector. 

Bright Feeds' Sustainable Operations

At its Berlin facility, Bright Feeds employs advanced artificial intelligence and drying technology to transform surplus food into an all-natural, nutrient-rich alternative to soy and corn in animal feed, complementing emerging agrivoltaics approaches that pair energy with agriculture. The company supplies its innovative feed product to a broad range of customers across the Northeast, including animal feed distributors and dairy farms. By processing food that would otherwise go to waste, the facility diverts tens of thousands of tons of food from the regional waste stream each year. When operating at full capacity, the environmental benefit of the plant’s process is comparable to taking more than 33,000 cars off the road annually.

Industry Impact

Bright Feeds' adoption of solar energy sets a precedent for sustainability in the agricultural sector. The integration of renewable energy sources into production processes not only reduces operational costs but also demonstrates a commitment to environmental stewardship, amid rising European demand for U.S. solar equipment that underscores market momentum. As the demand for sustainable practices grows, and as rural clean energy delivers measurable benefits, other companies in the industry may look to Bright Feeds as a model for integrating clean energy solutions into their operations.

Bright Feeds' initiative to power its Berlin facility with solar energy underscores the company's dedication to sustainability and innovation. By harnessing the power of the sun, Bright Feeds is not only reducing its carbon footprint but also contributing to a cleaner, more sustainable future for the agricultural industry, and when paired with solar batteries can further enhance resilience. This move serves as an example for other companies seeking to align their operations with environmental responsibility and renewable energy adoption, as new milestones like a U.S. clean energy factory signal expanding capacity across the sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

China Nuclear Power Expansion accelerates with reactor approvals, Hualong One and CAP1400 deployments, rising gigawatts, clean energy targets, carbon neutrality goals, and grid reliability benefits to meet coastal demand and reduce emissions.

Key Points

An accelerated reactor buildout to add clean capacity, curb emissions, and improve grid reliability nationwide.

✅ Approvals surge for Hualong One and CAP1400 third-gen reactors

✅ Capacity targets approach 100 GW installed by 2030

✅ Supports carbon neutrality, energy security, and lower costs

While China has failed to accomplish its 2020 nuclear target of 58 gigawatts under operation and 30 GW under construction, insiders are optimistic about prospects for the nonpolluting energy resource in China over the next five years as the country has stepped up nuclear approvals and construction since 2020.

China expects to record 49 operating nuclear facilities and capacity of more than 51 GW as of the end of 2020. Nuclear power currently makes up around 2.4 percent of the country's total installed energy capacity, said the China Nuclear Energy Association. There are 19 facilities that have received approval and are under construction, with capacity exceeding 20 GW, ranking top globally as nuclear project milestones worldwide continue, it said.

"With surging power demand from coastal regions, more domestic technology, including next-gen nuclear, will be adopted with installations likely nearing 100 GW by the end of 2030," said Wei Hanyang, a power market analyst at Bloomberg New Energy.

Following the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster in 2011 in Japan, China has, like many countries including Japan, Germany and Switzerland, suspended nuclear power project approvals for a period, including construction of the pilot project of Shidaowan nuclear power plant in Shandong province that uses CAP1400 technology, based on third-generation Westinghouse AP1000 reactor technology.

As China promotes greener development and prioritizes safety and security of nuclear power plant construction, it has pledged to hit peak emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, with electricity meeting 60% of energy use by 2060 according to Shell, the Shidaowan plant, originally scheduled to launch construction in 2014 and enter service in 2018, is expected to start fuel loading and begin operations this year.

Joseph Jacobelli, an independent energy analyst and executive vice-president for Asia business at Cenfura Ltd, a smart energy services company, said recent developments confirm China's ongoing commitment to further boost the country's nuclear sector.

"The nuclear plants can help meet China's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as the country reduces coal power production and provide air pollution-free energy at a lower cost to consumers. China's need for clean energy means that nuclear power generation definitely has an important place in the long-term energy mix," Jacobelli said.

He added that Chinese companies' cost control capabilities and technological advancements, and operational performance improvements such as the AP1000 refueling outage record, are also likely to continue providing domestic companies with advantages, as the cost per kilowatt-hour is very important, especially as solar, wind and other clean energy solutions become even cheaper over the next few years.

China approved two nuclear projects in 2020- Hainan Changjiang nuclear power plant unit 2 and Zhejiang San'ao nuclear power plant unit 1. This is after the country launched three new nuclear power plants in 2019 in the provinces of Shandong, Fujian and Guangdong, which marked the end of a moratorium on new projects.

The Zhejiang San'ao nuclear power plant saw concrete poured for unit 1 on Dec 31, according to its operator China General Nuclear. It will be the first of six Hualong One pressurized water reactors to be built at the site as well as the first Chinese nuclear power plant project to involve private capital.

Jointly invested, constructed and operated by CGN, Zheneng Electric Power, Wenzhou Nuclear Energy Development, Cangnan County Haixi Construction Development and Geely Maijie Investment, the project creates a new model of mixed ownership of nuclear power enterprises, said CGN.

The world's first Hualong One reactor at unit 5 of China National Nuclear Corp's Fuqing nuclear plant in Fujian province was connected to the grid in November. With the start of work on San'ao unit 1, China now has further seven Hualong One units under construction, including Fuqing 6, which is scheduled to go online this year.

CNNC is also constructing one unit at Taipingling in Guangdong and two at Zhangzhou in Fujian province. CGN is building two at its Fangchenggang site in Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region. In addition, two Hualong One units are under construction at Karachi in Pakistan, while CGN proposes to use a UK version of the Hualong One at Bradwell in the United Kingdom, aligning with the country's green industrial revolution strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Electric tractors are surging, with battery-powered models, grid-tethered JD GridCON, and solar-charged designs delivering autonomous guidance, high efficiency, low maintenance, quiet operation, robust PTO compatibility, and durability for sustainable, precision agriculture.

Key Points

Electric tractors use battery or grid power to run implements with high efficiency, low noise, and minimal maintenance.

✅ Battery, grid-tethered, or solar-charged power options

✅ Lower operating costs, reduced noise, fewer moving parts

✅ Autonomous guidance, PTO compatibility, and quick charging

Car and truck manufacturers are falling off the fossil fuel bandwagon in droves and jumping on the electric train.

Now add tractors to that list.

Every month, another e-tractor announcement comes across our desks. Environmental factors drive this trend, along with energy efficiency, lower maintenance, lower noise level and motor longevity, and even autonomous weed-zapping robots are emerging.

Let’s start with the Big Daddy of them all, the 400 horsepower JD GridCON. This tractor is not a hybrid and it has no hassle with batteries. The 300 kilowatts of power come to the GridCON through a 1,000 metre extension cord connected to the grid, including virtual power plants or an off-field generator. A reel on the tractor rolls the cable in and out. The cable is guided by a robotic arm to prevent the tractor from running over it.

It uses a 700 volt DC bus for electric power distribution onboard and for auxiliary implements. It uses a cooling infrastructure for off-board electrical use. Total efficiency of the drive train is around 85 percent. A 100 kilowatt electric motor runs the IVT transmission. There’s an auxiliary outlet for implements powered by an electric motor up to 200 kW.

GridCON autonomously follows prescribed routes in the field at speeds up to 12 m.p.h., leveraging concepts similar to fleet management solutions for coordination. It can also be guided manually with a remote control when manoeuvring the tractor to enter a field. Empty weight is 8.5 tonnes, which is about the same as a 6195R but with double the power. Deere engineers say it will save about 50 percent in operating costs compared to battery powered tractors.

Solectrac
Two California-built all-battery powered tractors are finally in full production. While the biggest is only 40 horsepower, these are serious tractors that may foretell the future of farm equipment.

The all-electric 40 h.p. eUtility tractor is based on a 1950s Ford built in India. Solectrac is able to buy the bare tractor without an engine, so it can create a brand new electric tractor with no used components for North American customers. One tractor has already been sold to a farmer in Ontario. | Solectrac photo
The tractors are built by Solectrac, owned by inventor Steve Heckeroth, who has been doing electric conversions on cars, trucks, race cars and tractors for 25 years. He said there are three main reasons to take electric tractors seriously: simplicity, energy efficiency and longevity.

“The electric motor has only one moving part, unlike small diesel engines, which have over 300 moving parts,” Heckeroth said, adding that Solectrac tractors are not halfway compromise hybrids but true electric machines that get their power from the sun or the grid, particularly in hydro-rich regions like Manitoba where clean electricity is abundant, whichever is closest.

Neither tractor uses hydraulics. Instead, Heckeroth uses electric linear actuators. The ones he installs provide 1,000 pounds of dynamic load and 3,000 lb. static loads. He uses linear actuators because they are 20 times more efficient than hydraulics.

The eUtility and eFarmer are two-wheel drive only, but engineers are working on compact four-wheel drive electric tractors. Each tractor carries a price tag of US$40,000. Because production numbers are still limited, both tractors are available on a first to deposit basis. One e-tractor has already been sold and delivered to a farmer in Ontario.

The eUtility is a 40 h.p. yard tractor that accepts all Category 1, 540 r.p.m. power take-off implements on the rear three-point hitch, except those requiring hydraulics. An optional hydraulic pump can be installed for $3,000 for legacy implements that require hydraulics. For that price, a dedicated electricity believer might instead consider converting the implement to electric.

“The eUtility is actually a converted new 1950s Ford tractor made in a factory in India that was taken over after the British were kicked out in 1948,” Heckeroth said.

“I am able to buy only the parts I need and then add the motor, controller and batteries. I had to go to India because it’s one of the few places that still makes geared transmissions. These transmissions work the best for electric tractors. Gear reduction is necessary to keep the motor in the most efficient range of about 2,000 r.p.m. It has four gears with a high and low range, which covers everything from creep to 25 m.p.h.

On his eUtility, a single 30 kWh onboard battery pack provides five to eight hours of run time, depending on loads. It can carry two battery packs. The Level 2 quick charge gives an 80 percent charge for one pack in three hours. Two packs can receive a full charge overnight with support from home batteries like Powerwall for load management.

The integrated battery management system protects the batteries during charging and discharging, while backup fuel cell chargers can keep storage healthy in remote deployments. Batteries are expected to last about 10 years, depending on the number of operating cycles and depth of discharge.

Exchangeable battery packs are available to keep the tractor running through the full work day. These smaller 20 kWh packs can be mounted on the rear hitch to balance the weight of the optional front loader or carried in the optional front loader to balance the weight of heavy implements mounted on the rear hitch.

The second tractor is the 20 kWh eFarmer, which features high visibility for row crop farms at a fraction of the cost of diesel fuel tractors. The 30 h.p. eFarmer is basically just a tube frame with the necessary components attached. A simple joystick controls steering, speed and brakes.

Harvest
Introduced to the North American public this spring by Motivo Engineering in California, the Harvest tractor is simply a big battery on wheels. The complex electrical system takes power in through a variety of renewable energy sources, such as solar panels with smart solar inverters enabling optimized PV integration, water wheels, wind turbines or even intermittent electrical grids. It stores electrical power on-board and delivers it when and where required, putting power out to a large number of electrical tools and farm implements. It operates in AC or DC modes.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

SDG&E Minimum Bill Proposal would impose a $38.40 fixed charge, discouraging rooftop solar, burdening low income households, and shifting grid costs during peak demand, as the CPUC weighs consumer impacts and affordability.

Key Points

Sets a $38.40 monthly minimum bill that raises low usage costs, deters rooftop solar, and burdens low income households.

✅ $38.40 fixed charge regardless of usage

✅ Disincentivizes rooftop solar investments

✅ Disproportionate impact on low income customers

The utility San Diego Gas & Energy has an aggressive proposal pending before the California Public Utilities Commission, amid recent commission changes in San Diego that highlight how regulatory decisions affect local customers: It wants to charge most residential customers a minimum bill of $38.40 each month, regardless of how much energy they use. The costs of this policy would hit low-income customers and those who generate their own energy with rooftop solar. We’re urging the Commission to oppose this flawed plan—and we need your help.

SDG&E’s proposal is bad news for sustainable energy. About half of the customers whose bills would go up under this proposal have rooftop solar. The policy would deter other customers from investing in rooftop solar by making these investments less economical. Ultimately, lost opportunities for solar would mean burning more gas in polluting power plants. 

The proposal is also bad news for people who already have to scrimp on energy costs. Most customers with big homes and billowing air conditioners won't notice if this policy goes into effect, because they use at least $38 worth of electricity a month anyway. But for households that don’t buy much electricity from the company, including those in small apartments without air conditioning, this proposal would raise the bills. Even for customers on special low-income rates, amid electric bill changes statewide, SDG&E wants a minimum bill of $19.20.

Penalizing customers who don’t use much electricity would disproportionately hurt lower-income customers, raising energy equity concerns across the region, who tend to use less energy than their wealthier neighbors. In the region SDG&E serves, the average family in an apartment uses half as much electricity as a single-family residence. Statewide, low-income households are more than four times as likely to be low-usage electricity customers than high-income households. When it gets hot, residential electricity patterns are often driven by air conditioning. The vast majority of SDG&E's customers live in the coastal climate zone, where access to air conditioning is strongly linked to income: Households with incomes over $150,000 are more than twice as likely to have air conditioning than families making less than $35,000, with significant racial disparities in who has AC.

In its attempt to rationalize its request, SDG&E argues that it should charge everyone for infrastructure costs that do not depend on how much energy they use. But the cost of the grid is driven by how much energy SDG&E delivers on hot summer afternoons, when some customers blast their AC and demand for electricity peaks. If more customers relied on their own solar power or conserved energy, the utility would spend less on its grid and help rein in soaring electricity prices over time.

In the long term, reducing incentives to go solar and conserve energy will strain the grid and drive up costs for everyone, especially as lawmakers may overturn income-based charges and reshape rate design. SDG&E's arguments are part of a standard utility playbook for trying to hike income-based fixed charges, and consumer advocates have repeatedly shut them down.  As far as we know, no regulators in the country have allowed a utility to charge customers over $38 for the “privilege” of accessing electric service. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News