China to offer subsidies to boost photovoltaic market

Brain Stimulation is transforming neuromodulation, from TMS and DBS to closed loop devices, targeting neural circuits for addiction, depression, Parkinsons, epilepsy, and chronic pain, powered by advanced imaging, AI analytics, and the NIH BRAIN Initiative.

Key Points

Brain stimulation uses pulses to modulate neural circuits, easing symptoms in depression, Parkinsons, and epilepsy.

✅ Noninvasive TMS and invasive DBS modulate specific brain circuits

✅ Closed loop systems adapt stimulation via real time biomarker detection

✅ Emerging uses: addiction, depression, Parkinsons, epilepsy, chronic pain

In June 2015, biology professor Colleen Hanlon went to a conference on drug dependence. As she met other researchers and wandered around a glitzy Phoenix resort’s conference rooms to learn about the latest work on therapies for drug and alcohol use disorders, she realized that out of the 730 posters, there were only two on brain stimulation as a potential treatment for addiction — both from her own lab at Wake Forest School of Medicine.

Just four years later, she would lead 76 researchers on four continents in writing a consensus article about brain stimulation as an innovative tool for addiction. And in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved a transcranial magnetic stimulation device to help patients quit smoking, a milestone for substance use disorders.

Brain stimulation is booming. Hanlon can attend entire conferences devoted to the study of what electrical currents do—including how targeted stimulation can improve short-term memory in older adults—to the intricate networks of highways and backroads that make up the brain’s circuitry. This expanding field of research is slowly revealing truths of the brain: how it works, how it malfunctions, and how electrical impulses, precisely targeted and controlled, might be used to treat psychiatric and neurological disorders.

In the last half-dozen years, researchers have launched investigations into how different forms of neuromodulation affect addiction, depression, loss-of-control eating, tremor, chronic pain, obsessive compulsive disorder, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and more. Early studies have shown subtle electrical jolts to certain brain regions could disrupt circuit abnormalities — the miscommunications — that are thought to underlie many brain diseases, and help ease symptoms that persist despite conventional treatments.

The National Institute of Health’s massive BRAIN Initiative put circuits front and center, distributing $2.4 billion to researchers since 2013 to devise and use new tools to observe interactions between brain cells and circuits. That, in turn, has kindled interest from the private sector. Among the advances that have enhanced our understanding of how distant parts of the brain talk with one another are new imaging technology and the use of machine learning, much as utilities use AI to adapt to shifting electricity demand, to interpret complex brain signals and analyze what happens when circuits go haywire.

Still, the field is in its infancy, and even therapies that have been approved for use in patients with, for example, Parkinson’s disease or epilepsy, help only a minority of patients, and in a world where electricity drives pandemic readiness expectations can outpace evidence. “If it was the Bible, it would be the first chapter of Genesis,” said Michael Okun, executive director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health.

As brain stimulation evolves, researchers face daunting hurdles, and not just scientific ones. How will brain stimulation become accessible to all the patients who need it, given how expensive and invasive some treatments are? Proving to the FDA that brain stimulation works, and does so safely, is complicated and expensive. Even with a swell of scientific momentum and an influx of funding, the agency has so far cleared brain stimulation for only a handful of limited conditions. Persuading insurers to cover the treatments is another challenge altogether. And outside the lab, researchers are debating nascent issues, such as the ethics of mind control, the privacy of a person’s brain data—concerns that echo efforts to develop algorithms to prevent blackouts during rising ransomware threats—and how to best involve patients in the study of the human brain’s far-flung regions.

Neurologist Martha Morrell is optimistic about the future of brain stimulation. She remembers the shocked reactions of her colleagues in 2004 when she left full-time teaching at Stanford (she still has a faculty appointment as a clinical professor of neurology) to direct clinical trials at NeuroPace, then a young company making neurostimulator systems to potentially treat epilepsy patients.

Related: Once a last resort, this pain therapy is getting a new life amid the opioid crisis
“When I started working on this, everybody thought I was insane,” said Morrell. Nearly 20 years in, she sees a parallel between the story of jolting the brain’s circuitry and that of early implantable cardiac devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators, which initially “were used as a last option, where all other medications have failed.” Now, “the field of cardiology is very comfortable incorporating electrical therapy, device therapy, into routine care. And I think that’s really where we’re going with neurology as well.”

Reaching a ‘slope of enlightenment’
Parkinson’s is, in some ways, an elder in the world of modern brain stimulation, and it shows the potential as well as the limitations of the technology. Surgeons have been implanting electrodes deep in the brains of Parkinson’s patients since the late 1990s, and in people with more advanced disease since the early 2000s.

In that time, it’s gone through the “hype cycle,” said Okun, the national medical adviser to the Parkinson’s Foundation since 2006. Feverish excitement and overinflated expectations have given way to reality, bringing scientists to a “slope of enlightenment,” he said. They have found deep brain stimulation to be very helpful for some patients with Parkinson’s, rendering them almost symptom-free by calming the shaking and tremors that medications couldn’t. But it doesn’t stop the progression of the disease, or resolve some of the problems patients with advanced Parkinson’s have walking, talking, and thinking.

In 2015, the same year Hanlon found only her lab’s research on brain stimulation at the addiction conference, Kevin O’Neill watched one finger on his left hand start doing something “funky.” One finger twitched, then two, then his left arm started tingling and a feeling appeared in his right leg, like it was about to shake but wouldn’t — a tremor.

“I was assuming it was anxiety,” O’Neill, 62, told STAT. He had struggled with anxiety before, and he had endured a stressful year: a separation, selling his home, starting a new job at a law firm in California’s Bay Area. But a year after his symptoms first began, O’Neill was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.

In the broader energy context, California has increasingly turned to battery storage to stabilize its strained grid.

Related: Psychiatric shock therapy, long controversial, may face fresh restrictions
Doctors prescribed him pills that promote the release of dopamine, to offset the death of brain cells that produce this messenger molecule in circuits that control movement. But he took them infrequently because he worried about insomnia as a side effect. Walking became difficult — “I had to kind of think my left leg into moving” — and the labor lawyer found it hard to give presentations and travel to clients’ offices.

A former actor with an outgoing personality, he developed social anxiety and didn’t tell his bosses about his diagnosis for three years, and wouldn’t have, if not for two workdays in summer 2018 when his tremors were severe and obvious.

O’Neill’s tremors are all but gone since he began deep brain stimulation last May, though his left arm shakes when he feels tense.

It was during that period that he learned about deep brain stimulation, at a support group for Parkinson’s patients. “I thought, ‘I will never let anybody fuss with my brain. I’m not going to be a candidate for that,’” he recalled. “It felt like mad scientist science fiction. Like, are you kidding me?”

But over time, the idea became less radical, as O’Neill spoke to DBS patients and doctors and did his own research, and as his symptoms worsened. He decided to go for it. Last May, doctors at the University of California, San Francisco surgically placed three metal leads into his brain, connected by thin cords to two implants in his chest, just near the clavicles. A month later, he went into the lab and researchers turned the device on.

“That was a revelation that day,” he said. “You immediately — literally, immediately — feel the efficacy of these things. … You go from fully symptomatic to non-symptomatic in seconds.”

When his nephew pulled up to the curb to pick him up, O’Neill started dancing, and his nephew teared up. The following day, O’Neill couldn’t wait to get out of bed and go out, even if it was just to pick up his car from the repair shop.

In the year since, O’Neill’s walking has gone from “awkward and painful” to much improved, and his tremors are all but gone. When he is extra frazzled, like while renovating and moving into his new house overlooking the hills of Marin County, he feels tense and his left arm shakes and he worries the DBS is “failing,” but generally he returns to a comfortable, tremor-free baseline.

O’Neill worried about the effects of DBS wearing off but, for now, he can think “in terms of decades, instead of years or months,” he recalled his neurologist telling him. “The fact that I can put away that worry was the big thing.”

He’s just one patient, though. The brain has regions that are mostly uniform across all people. The functions of those regions also tend to be the same. But researchers suspect that how brain regions interact with one another — who mingles with whom, and what conversation they have — and how those mixes and matches cause complex diseases varies from person to person. So brain stimulation looks different for each patient.

Related: New study revives a Mozart sonata as a potential epilepsy therapy
Each case of Parkinson’s manifests slightly differently, and that’s a bit of knowledge that applies to many other diseases, said Okun, who organized the nine-year-old Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank, where leading researchers convene, review papers, and publish reports on the field’s progress each year.

“I think we’re all collectively coming to the realization that these diseases are not one-size-fits-all,” he said. “We have to really begin to rethink the entire infrastructure, the schema, the framework we start with.”

Brain stimulation is also used frequently to treat people with common forms of epilepsy, and has reduced the number of seizures or improved other symptoms in many patients. Researchers have also been able to collect high-quality data about what happens in the brain during a seizure — including identifying differences between epilepsy types. Still, only about 15% of patients are symptom-free after treatment, according to Robert Gross, a neurosurgery professor at Emory University in Atlanta.

“And that’s a critical difference for people with epilepsy. Because people who are symptom-free can drive,” which means they can get to a job in a place like Georgia, where there is little public transit, he said. So taking neuromodulation “from good to great,” is imperative, Gross said.

Renaissance for an ancient idea
Recent advances are bringing about what Gross sees as “almost a renaissance period” for brain stimulation, though the ideas that undergird the technology are millenia old. Neuromodulation goes back to at least ancient Egypt and Greece, when electrical shocks from a ray, called the “torpedo fish,” were recommended as a treatment for headache and gout. Over centuries, the fish zaps led to doctors burning holes into the brains of patients. Those “lesions” worked, somehow, but nobody could explain why they alleviated some patients’ symptoms, Okun said.

Perhaps the clearest predecessor to today’s technology is electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), which in a rudimentary and dangerous way began being used on patients with depression roughly 100 years ago, said Nolan Williams, director of the Brain Stimulation Lab at Stanford University.

Related: A new index measures the extent and depth of addiction stigma
More modern forms of brain stimulation came about in the United States in the mid-20th century. A common, noninvasive approach is transcranial magnetic stimulation, which involves placing an electromagnetic coil on the scalp to transmit a current into the outermost layer of the brain. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), used to treat epilepsy, zaps a nerve that contributes to some seizures.

The most invasive option, deep brain stimulation, involves implanting in the skull a device attached to electrodes embedded in deep brain regions, such as the amygdala, that can’t be reached with other stimulation devices. In 1997, the FDA gave its first green light to deep brain stimulation as a treatment for tremor, and then for Parkinson’s in 2002 and the movement disorder dystonia in 2003.

Even as these treatments were cleared for patients, though, what was happening in the brain remained elusive. But advanced imaging tools now let researchers peer into the brain and map out networks — a recent breakthrough that researchers say has propelled the field of brain stimulation forward as much as increased funding has, paralleling broader efforts to digitize analog electrical systems across industry. Imaging of both human brains and animal models has helped researchers identify the neuroanatomy of diseases, target brain regions with more specificity, and watch what was happening after electrical stimulation.

Another key step has been the shift from open-loop stimulation — a constant stream of electricity — to closed-loop stimulation that delivers targeted, brief jolts in response to a symptom trigger. To make use of the futuristic technology, labs need people to develop artificial intelligence tools, informed by advances in machine learning for the energy transition, to interpret large data sets a brain implant is generating, and to tailor devices based on that information.

“We’ve needed to learn how to be data scientists,” Morrell said.

Affinity groups, like the NIH-funded Open Mind Consortium, have formed to fill that gap. Philip Starr, a neurosurgeon and developer of implantable brain devices at the University of California at San Francisco Health system, leads the effort to teach physicians how to program closed-loop devices, and works to create ethical standards for their use. “There’s been extraordinary innovation after 20 years of no innovation,” he said.

The BRAIN Initiative has been critical, several researchers told STAT. “It’s been a godsend to us,” Gross said. The NIH’s Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative was launched in 2013 during the Obama administration with a $50 million budget. BRAIN now spends over $500 million per year. Since its creation, BRAIN has given over 1,100 awards, according to NIH data. Part of the initiative’s purpose is to pair up researchers with medical technology companies that provide human-grade stimulation devices to the investigators. Nearly three dozen projects have been funded through the investigator-devicemaker partnership program and through one focused on new implantable devices for first-in-human use, according to Nick Langhals, who leads work on neurological disorders at the initiative.

The more BRAIN invests, the more research is spawned. “We learn more about what circuits are involved … which then feeds back into new and more innovative projects,” he said.

Many BRAIN projects are still in early stages, finishing enrollment or small feasibility studies, Langhals said. Over the next couple of years, scientists will begin to see some of the fruits of their labor, which could lead to larger clinical trials, or to companies developing more refined brain stimulation implants, Langhals said.

Money from the National Institutes of Mental Health, as well as the NIH’s Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL), has similarly sweetened the appeal of brain stimulation, both for researchers and industry. “A critical mass” of companies interested in neuromodulation technology has mushroomed where, for two decades, just a handful of companies stood, Starr said.

More and more, pharmaceutical and digital health companies are looking at brain stimulation devices “as possible products for their future,” said Linda Carpenter, director of the Butler Hospital TMS Clinic and Neuromodulation Research Facility.

‘Psychiatry 3.0’
The experience with using brain stimulation to stop tremors and seizures inspired psychiatrists to begin exploring its use as a potentially powerful therapy for healing, or even getting ahead of, mental illness.

In 2008, the FDA approved TMS for patients with major depression who had tried, and not gotten relief from, drug therapy. “That kind of opened the door for all of us,” said Hanlon, a professor and researcher at the Center for Research on Substance Use and Addiction at Wake Forest School of Medicine. The last decade saw a surge of research into how TMS could be used to reset malfunctioning brain circuits involved in anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and other conditions.

“We’re certainly entering into what a lot of people are calling psychiatry 3.0,” Stanford’s Williams said. “Whereas the first iteration was Freud and all that business, the second one was the psychopharmacology boom, and this third one is this bit around circuits and stimulation.”

Drugs alleviate some patients’ symptoms while simultaneously failing to help many others, but psychopharmacology clearly showed “there’s definitely a biology to this problem,” Williams said — a biology that in some cases may be more amenable to a brain stimulation.

Related: Largest psilocybin trial finds the psychedelic is effective in treating serious depression
The exact mechanics of what happens between cells when brain circuits … well, short-circuit, is unclear. Researchers are getting closer to finding biomarkers that warn of an incoming depressive episode, or wave of anxiety, or loss of impulse control. Those brain signatures could be different for every patient. If researchers can find molecular biomarkers for psychiatric disorders — and find ways to preempt those symptoms by shocking particular brain regions — that would reshape the field, Williams said.

Not only would disease-specific markers help clinicians diagnose people, but they could help chip away at the stigma that paints mental illness as a personal or moral failing instead of a disease. That’s what happened for epilepsy in the 1960s, when scientific findings nudged the general public toward a deeper understanding of why seizures happen, and it’s “the same trajectory” Williams said he sees for depression.

His research at the Stanford lab also includes work on suicide, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which the FDA said in 2018 could be treated using noninvasive TMS. Williams considers brain stimulation, with its instantaneity, to be a potential breakthrough for urgent psychiatric situations. Doctors know what to do when a patient is rushed into the emergency room with a heart attack or a stroke, but there is no immediate treatment for psychiatric emergencies, he said. Williams wonders: What if, in the future, a suicidal patient could receive TMS in the emergency room and be quickly pulled out of their depressive mental spiral?

Researchers are also actively investigating the brain biology of addiction. In August 2020, the FDA approved TMS for smoking cessation, the first such OK for a substance use disorder, which is “really exciting,” Hanlon said. Although there is some nuance when comparing substance use disorders, a primal mechanism generally defines addiction: the eternal competition between “top-down” executive control functions and “bottom-up” cravings. It’s the same process that is at work when one is deciding whether to eat another cookie or abstain — just exacerbated.

Hanlon is trying to figure out if the stop and go circuits are in the same place for all people, and whether neuromodulation should be used to strengthen top-down control or weaken bottom-up cravings. Just as brain stimulation can be used to disrupt cellular misfiring, it could also be a tool for reinforcing helpful brain functions, or for giving the addicted brain what it wants in order to curb substance use.

Evidence suggests many people with schizophrenia smoke cigarettes (a leading cause of early death for this population) because nicotine reduces the “hyperconnectivity” that characterizes the brains of people with the disease, said Heather Ward, a research fellow at Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. She suspects TMS could mimic that effect, and therefore reduce cravings and some symptoms of the disease, and she hopes to prove that in a pilot study that is now enrolling patients.

If the scientific evidence proves out, clinicians say brain stimulation could be used alongside behavioral therapy and drug-based therapy to treat substance use disorders. “In the end, we’re going to need all three to help people stay sober,” Hanlon said. “We’re adding another tool to the physician’s toolbox.”

Decoding the mysteries of pain
Afavorable outcome to the ongoing research, one that would fling the doors to brain stimulation wide open for patients with myriad disorders, is far from guaranteed. Chronic pain researchers know that firsthand.

Chronic pain, among the most mysterious and hard-to-study medical phenomena, was the first use for which the FDA approved deep brain stimulation, said Prasad Shirvalkar, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at UCSF. But when studies didn’t pan out after a year, the FDA retracted its approval.

Shirvalkar is working with Starr and neurosurgeon Edward Chang on a profoundly complex problem: “decoding pain in the brain states, which has never been done,” as Starr told STAT.

Part of the difficulty of studying pain is that there is no objective way to measure it. Much of what we know about pain is from rudimentary surveys that ask patients to rate how much they’re hurting, on a scale from zero to 10.

Using implantable brain stimulation devices, the researchers ask patients for a 0-to-10 rating of their pain while recording up-and-down cycles of activity in the brain. They then use machine learning to compare the two streams of information and see what brain activity correlates with a patient’s subjective pain experience. Implantable devices let researchers collect data over weeks and months, instead of basing findings on small snippets of information, allowing for a much richer analysis.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increases hit Peco, PPL, and Pike County, driven by natural gas costs and wholesale power markets; default rate changes, price to compare shifts, and time-of-use plans affect residential bills.

Key Points

Electric default rates are rising across Pennsylvania as natural gas costs climb, affecting Peco, PPL, and Pike customers.

✅ PPL, Peco, and Pike raising default rates Dec. 1

✅ Natural gas costs driving wholesale power prices

✅ Consider standard offer, TOU rates, and efficiency

Energy costs for electric customers are going up by as much as 50% across Pennsylvania next week, the latest manifestation of US electricity price increases impacting gasoline, heating oil, propane, and natural gas.

Eight Pennsylvania electric utilities are set to increase their energy prices on Dec. 1, reflecting the higher cost to produce electricity. Peco Energy, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, will boost its energy charge by 6.4% on Dec. 1, from 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour to about 7 cents per kWh. Energy charges account for about half of a residential bill.

PPL Electric Utilities, the Allentown company that serves a large swath of Pennsylvania including parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties, will impose a 26% increase on residential energy costs on Dec. 1, from about 7.5 cents per kWh to 9.5 cents per kWh. That’s an increase of $40 a month for an electric heating customer who uses 2,000 kWh a month.

Pike County Light & Power, which serves about 4,800 customers in Northeast Pennsylvania, will increase energy charges by 50%, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

“All electric distribution companies face the same market forces as PPL Electric Utilities,” PPL said in a statement. Each Pennsylvania utility follows a different PUC-regulated plan for procuring energy from power generators, and those forces can include rising nuclear power costs in some regions, which explains why some customers are absorbing the hit sooner rather than later, it said.

There are ways customers can mitigate the impact. Utilities offer a host of programs and grants to support low-income customers, and some states are exploring income-based fixed charges to address affordability, and they encourage anyone struggling to pay their bills to call the utility for help. Customers can also control their costs by conserving energy. It may be time to put on a sweater and weatherize the house.

Peco recently introduced time-of-use rates — as seen when Ontario ended fixed pricing — that include steep discounts for customers who can shift electric usage to late night hours — that’s you, electric vehicle owners.

There’s also a clever opportunity available for many Pennsylvania customers called the “standard offer” that might save you some real money, but you need to act before the new charges take effect on Dec. 1 to lock in the best rates.

Why are the price hikes happening?
But first, how did we get here?

Energy charges are rising for a simple reason: Fuel prices for power generators are increasing, and that’s driven mostly by natural gas. It’s pushing up electricity prices in wholesale power markets and has lifted typical residential bills in recent years.

“It’s all market forces right now,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, PUC spokesperson. Energy charges are strictly a pass-through cost for utilities. Utilities aren’t allowed to mark them up.

The increase in utility energy charges does not affect customers who buy their energy from competitive power suppliers in deregulated electricity markets. About 27% of Pennsylvania’s 5.9 million electric customers who shop for electricity from third-party suppliers either pay fixed rates, whose price remains stable, or are on a variable-rate plan tied to market prices. The variable-rate electric bills have probably already increased to reflect the higher cost of generating power.

Most New Jersey electric customers are shielded for now from rising energy costs. New Jersey sets annual energy prices for customers who don’t shop for power. Those rates go into effect on June 1 and stay in place for 12 months. The current energy market fluctuations will be reflected in new rates that take effect next summer, said Lauren Ugorji, a spokesperson for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., New Jersey’s largest utility.

For each utility, its own plan
Pennsylvania has a different system for setting utility energy charges, which are also known as the “default rate,” because that’s the price a customer gets by default if they don’t shop for power. The default rate is also the same thing as the “price to compare,” a term the PUC has adopted so consumers can make an apples-to-apples comparison between a utility’s energy charge and the price offered by a competitive supplier.

Each of the state’s 11 PUC-regulated electric utilities prepares its own “default service plan,” that governs the method by which they procure power on wholesale markets. Electric distribution companies like Peco are required to buy the lowest priced power. They typically buy power in blind auctions conducted by independent agents, so that there’s no favoritism for affiliated power generators

Some utilities adjust charges quarterly, and others do it semi-annually. “This means that each [utility’s] resulting price to compare will vary as the market changes, some taking longer to reflect price changes, both up and down,” PPL said in a statement. PPL conducted its semi-annual auction in October, when energy prices were rising sharply.

Most utilities buy power from suppliers under contracts of varying durations, both long-term and short-term. The contracts are staggered so market price fluctuations are smoothed out. One utility, Pike County Power & Light, buys all its power on the spot market, which explains why its energy charge will surge by 50% on Dec. 1. Pike County’s energy charge will also be quicker to decline when wholesale prices subside, as they are expected to next year.

Peco adjusts its energy charge quarterly, but it conducts power auctions semi-annually. It buys about 40% of its power in one-year contracts, and 60% in two-year contracts, and does not buy any power on spot markets, said Richard G. Webster Jr., Peco’s vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

“At any given time, we’re replacing about a third of our supplied portfolio,” he said.

The utility’s energy charge affects only part of the monthly bill. For a Peco residential electric customer who uses 700 kWh per month, the Dec. 1 energy charge increase will boost monthly bills by $2.94 per month, or 2.9%. For an electric heating customer who uses about 2,000 kWh per month, the change will boost bills $8.40 a month, or about 3.5%, said Greg Smore, a Peco spokesperson.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CER Interactive Electricity Bill Tool compares provincial electricity prices, fees, taxes, and usage. Explore household appliance costs, hydroelectric generation, and consumption trends across Canada with interactive calculators and a province-by-province breakdown.

Key Points

An online CER report with calculators comparing electricity prices, fees, and usage to explain household energy costs.

✅ Province-by-province bill, price, and consumption comparison

✅ Calculator for appliance and electronics energy costs

✅ Explains fees, taxes, regulation, and generation sources

Canadians have a new way to assess their electricity bill in a new, interactive online report released by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).

The report titled What is in a residential electricity bill? features a province-to-province comparison of electricity bills, generation and consumption. It also explains electricity prices across the country, including how Calgary electricity prices have changed, allowing people to understand why costs vary depending on location, fees, regulation and taxes.  

Learn how fees and usage impacts your electricity bill in new online CER tool
Interactive tools allow people to calculate the cost of household appliances and electronic use for each province and territory, and to understand how Ontario rate increases may affect monthly bills. For example, an individual can use the tools to find out that leaving a TV on for 24-hours in Quebec costs $5.25 per month, while that same TV on for a whole day would cost $12.29 per month in Saskatchewan, $20.49 per month in the Northwest Territories, and $15.30 per month in Nova Scotia.

How Canadians use energy varies as much as how provinces and territories produce it, especially in regions like Nunavut where unique conditions influence costs. Millions of Canadians rely on electricity to power their household appliances, charge their electronics, and heat their homes. Provinces with abundant hydro-electric resources like Quebec, B.C., Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador use electricity for home heating and tend to consume the most electricity.

By gathering data from various sources, this report is the first Canadian publication that features interactive tools to allow for a province-by-province comparison of electricity bills while highlighting different elements within an electricity bill, a helpful context as Canada faces a critical supply crunch in the years ahead.

The CER monitors energy markets and assesses Canadian energy requirements and trends, including clean electricity regulations developments that shape pricing. This report is part of a portfolio of publications on energy supply, demand and infrastructure that the CER publishes regularly as part of its ongoing market monitoring.

"No matter where you go in the country, Canadians want to know how much they pay for power and why, especially amid price spikes in Alberta this year," says lead author Colette Craig. "This innovative, interactive report really explains electricity bills to help everyone understand electricity pricing and consumption across Canada."

Quick Facts

• Quebec ranks first in electricity consumption per capita at 21.0 MW.h, followed by Saskatchewan at 20.0 MW.h, Newfoundland and Labrador at 19.3 MW.h.
• About 95% of Quebec's electricity is produced from hydroelectricity.
• Provinces that use electricity for home heating tend to consume the most electricity.
• Canada's largest consuming sector for electricity was industrial at 238 TW.h. The residential and commercial sectors consumed 168 TW.h and 126 TW.h, respectively.
• In 2018, Canada produced 647.7 terawatt hours (TW.h) of electricity. More than half of the electricity in Canada (61%) is generated from hydro sources. The remainder is produced from a variety of sources, such as fossil fuels (natural gas and petroleum), nuclear, wind, coal, biomass, solar.
• Canada is a net exporter of electricity. In 2019, net exports to the U.S. electricity market totaled 47.0 TW.h.
• The total value of Canada's electricity exports was $2.5 billion Canadian dollars and the value of imports was $0.6 billion Canadian dollars, resulting in 2019 net exports of $1.9 billion.
• All regions in Canada are reflected in this report but it does not include data that reflects the COVID-19 lockdown and its effects on residential electricity bills.
   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Automaker EV Fast-Charging Network will deploy 30,000 DC fast chargers across US and Canada, supporting CCS and NACS, integrating Tesla compatibility, easing range anxiety, and expanding highway and urban charging infrastructure with amenities and uptime.

Key Points

A $1B joint venture by seven automakers to build 30,000 DC fast chargers with CCS and NACS across the US and Canada.

✅ 30,000 DC fast chargers by 2030 across US and Canada

✅ Supports CCS and NACS; Tesla compatibility planned

✅ Launching mid-2024; focus on highways, urban hubs, amenities

Seven major automakers announced a plan on Wednesday to nearly double the number of fast chargers in the United States in an effort to address one of the main reasons that people hesitate to buy electric cars, even as the age of electric cars accelerates.

The carmakers — BMW Group, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz Group and Stellantis — will initially invest at least $1 billion in a joint venture that will build 30,000 charging ports on major highways and other locations in the United States and Canada.

The United States and Canada have about 36,000 fast chargers — those that can replenish a drained battery in 30 minutes or less. In some sparsely populated areas, such chargers can be hundreds of miles apart. Surveys show that fear about not being able to find a charger during longer journeys is a major reason that some car buyers are reluctant to buy electric vehicles.

Sales of electric vehicles have risen quickly in the United States as the market hits an inflection point, but there are signs that demand is softening. As a result, Tesla, Ford and other carmakers have cut prices in recent months and are offering incentives. Popular models that had long waiting lists last year are now available in a few days or weeks.

Major carmakers are investing billions of dollars to manufacture electric vehicles and batteries and to establish supplier networks. Having staked their futures on the technology, they have a strong incentive to ensure that electric vehicles catch on with car buyers, even as gas-electric hybrids help bridge the transition.

The chargers installed by the joint venture will have plugs designed for the connections used by most carmakers other than Tesla, as well as the standard developed by Tesla, amid fights for control over charging, that Ford, G.M. and other companies have said they intend to switch to in 2025.

“The better experience people have, the faster E.V. adoption will grow,” Mary T. Barra, the chief executive of General Motors, said in a statement.

The seven automakers plan to formalize the joint venture and announce its name by the end of the year, Chris Martin, a Honda spokesman, said. The first chargers will begin operating around the middle of 2024, he said, with all 30,000 in place by the end of the decade.

The joint venture is open to adding other partners, he said. Among major automakers, Ford was a notable absence from the announcement on Wednesday. The company said in a statement on Wednesday that it would continue to iThe partnership also does not include Volkswagen. The company is a majority shareholder of Electrify America, one of the largest fast-charging providers.

Tesla accounts for more than half the fast chargers in the United States and has said it will open its networks to other car brands, though, so far, it has only made fewer than 100 ports available. Owners of Ford and G.M. vehicles, among others, will be able to connect to 12,000 Tesla fast chargers using an adapter beginning next year. In 2025, Ford and G.M. plan to make models designed to take the Tesla plug without an adapter.

The decision by the seven carmakers to form the joint venture is an indication that they do not intend to rely solely on Tesla, which dominates sales of electric vehicles, for charging.

The chargers being built by the joint venture will be concentrated in urban areas and along major highways, especially those used most heavily by vacationers and other travelers, the companies said in a joint statement. Charging stations will be close to restrooms, restaurants and other amenities. The partners said they would try to take advantage of federal and state funds available for charging infrastructure amid questions about whether the U.S. has the power to charge it at scale.

Most electric vehicle owners charge at home and rarely need to use public chargers. Home chargers typically replenish batteries overnight. Most public chargers, about 125,000 in the United States and Canada, also operate relatively slowly — taking four to 10 hours to do the job.nvest in its own network, which allows Ford owners to charge from a variety of providers with one mobile phone app.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Seattle City Light Energy Efficiency Programs help 93,000 residents cut bills with rebates, home energy audits, weatherization, conservation workshops, and sustainability tools, reducing electricity use and greenhouse gas emissions across Seattle communities.

Key Points

They are utility programs that lower electricity use and bills via rebates, energy audits, and weatherization services.

✅ Rebates for ENERGY STAR appliances and efficient HVAC upgrades

✅ Free audits with tailored recommendations and savings roadmaps

✅ Weatherization aid for low-income households and renters

In a noteworthy achievement for both residents and the environment, Seattle City Light has successfully helped more than 93,000 customers reduce their electricity bills through various energy efficiency programs. This initiative not only alleviates financial burdens for many households, amid concerns about pandemic-era shut-offs that heightened energy insecurity, but also aligns with the city’s commitment to sustainability and responsible energy use.

The Drive for Energy Efficiency

Seattle City Light, the city’s publicly owned electric utility, has been at the forefront of promoting energy efficiency among its customers. Recognizing that energy costs can strain household budgets, the utility has developed a range of programs and tracks emerging utility rate designs to help residents lower their energy consumption and, consequently, their bills.

One of the main aspects of this initiative is the emphasis on education and awareness. By providing customers with tools and resources to understand their energy usage, City Light empowers residents to make informed choices that can lead to substantial savings and prepare for power outage events as well.

Key Programs and Services

Seattle City Light offers a variety of programs aimed at reducing energy consumption. Among the most popular are:

1. Energy Efficiency Rebates: Customers can receive rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances, such as refrigerators, washing machines, and HVAC systems. These appliances are designed to consume less electricity than traditional models, resulting in lower energy bills over time.

2. Home Energy Audits: Free energy audits are available for residential customers. During these audits, trained professionals assess homes for energy efficiency and provide recommendations on improvements. This personalized service allows homeowners to understand specific changes that can lead to savings.

3. Weatherization Assistance: This program is particularly beneficial for low-income households. By improving insulation, sealing air leaks, and enhancing overall energy efficiency, residents can maintain comfortable indoor temperatures without over-relying on heating and cooling systems.

4. Community Workshops: Seattle City Light conducts workshops that educate residents about energy conservation strategies. These sessions cover topics such as smart energy use, seasonal tips for reducing consumption, and the benefits of renewable energy sources, highlighting examples of clean energy engagement in other cities.

The Impact on Households

The impact of these initiatives is profound. By assisting over 93,000 customers in lowering their electricity bills, Seattle City Light not only provides immediate financial relief but also encourages a long-term commitment to energy conservation. This collective effort has resulted in significant reductions in overall energy consumption, contributing to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions—a critical step in the fight against climate change.

Additionally, the programs have been particularly beneficial for low-income households. By targeting these communities, Seattle City Light ensures that the benefits of energy efficiency reach those who need them the most, promoting equity-focused regulation and access to essential resources.

Looking Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

While the success of these initiatives is commendable, challenges remain. Fluctuating energy prices can still pose difficulties for many households, especially those on fixed incomes, as some utilities explore minimum charges for low-usage customers in their rate structures. Seattle City Light recognizes the need for ongoing support and resources to help residents navigate these financial challenges.

The utility is committed to expanding its programs to reach even more customers in the future. This includes enhancing outreach efforts to ensure that residents are aware of the available resources, even as debates like utility revenue in a free-electricity future shape planning, and potentially forming partnerships with local organizations to broaden the impact of its initiatives.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Energy Market Crisis drives record natural gas and electricity prices across the EU, as LNG supply constraints, Russian pipeline dependence, marginal pricing, and renewables integration expose volatility in liberalised power markets.

Key Points

A 2021 surge in European gas and electricity prices from supply strains, demand rebounds, and marginal pricing exposure.

✅ Record TTF gas and day-ahead power prices across Europe

✅ LNG constraints and Russian pipeline dependence tightened supply

✅ Debate over marginal pricing vs regulated models intensifies

By Ronan Bolton

The year 2021 was a turbulent one for energy markets across Europe, as Europe's energy nightmare deepened across the region. Skyrocketing natural gas prices have created a sense of crisis and will lead to cost-of-living problems for many households, as wholesale costs feed through into retail prices for gas and electricity over the coming months.

This has created immediate challenges for governments, but it should also encourage us to rethink the fundamental design of our energy markets as we seek to transition to net zero, with many viewing it as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the bloc.

This energy crisis was driven by a combination of factors: the relaxation of Covid-19 lockdowns across Europe created a surge in demand, while cold weather early in the year diminished storage levels and contributed to increasing demand from Asian economies. A number of technical issues and supply-side constraints also combined to limit imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the continent.

Europe’s reliance on pipeline imports from Russia has once again been called into question, as Gazprom has refused to ride to the rescue, only fulfilling its pre-existing contracts. The combination of these, and other, factors resulted in record prices – the European benchmark price (the Dutch TTF Gas Futures Contract) reached almost €180/MWh on 21 December, with average day-ahead electricity prices exceeding €300/MWh across much of the continent in the following days.

Countries which rely heavily on natural gas as a source of electricity generation have been particularly exposed, with governments quickly put under pressure to intervene in the market.

In Spain the government and large energy companies have clashed over a proposed windfall tax on power producers. In Ireland, where wind and gas meet much of the country’s surging electricity demand, the government is proposing a €100 rebate for all domestic energy consumers in early 2022; while the UK government is currently negotiating a sector-wide bailout of the energy supply sector and considering ending the gas-electricity price link to curb bills.

This follows the collapse of a number of suppliers who had based their business models on attracting customers with low prices by buying cheap on the spot market. The rising wholesale prices, combined with the retail price cap previously introduced by the Theresa May government, led to their collapse.

While individual governments have little control over prices in an increasingly globalised and interconnected natural gas market, they can exert influence over electricity prices as these markets remain largely national and strongly influenced by domestic policy and regulation. Arising from this, the intersection of gas and power markets has become a key site of contestation and comment about the role of government in mitigating the impacts on consumers of rising fuel bills, even as several EU states oppose major reforms amid the price spike.

Given that renewables are constituting an ever-greater share of production capacity, many are now questioning why gas prices play such a determining role in electricity markets.

As I outline in my forthcoming book, Making Energy Markets, a particular feature of the ‘European model’ of liberalised electricity trade since the 1990s has been a reliance on spot markets to improve the efficiency of electricity systems. The idea was that high marginal prices – often set by expensive-to-run gas peaking plants – would signal when capacity limits are reached, providing clear incentives to consumers to reduce or delay demand at these peak periods.

This, in theory, would lead to an overall more efficient system, and in the long run, if average prices exceeded the costs of entering the market, new investments would be made, thus pushing the more expensive and inefficient plants off the system.

The free-market model became established during a more stable era when domestically-sourced coal, along with gas purchased on long-term contracts from European sources (the North Sea and the Netherlands), constituted a much greater proportion of electricity generation.

While prices fluctuated, they were within a somewhat predictable range, and provided a stable benchmark for the long-term contracts underpinning investment decisions. This is no longer the case as energy markets become increasingly volatile and disrupted during the energy transition.

The idea that free price formation in a competitive market, with governments standing back, would benefit electricity consumers and lead to more efficient systems was rooted in sound economic theory, and is the basis on which other major commodity markets, such as metals and agricultural crops, have been organised for decades.

The free-market model applied to electricity had clear limitations, however, as the majority of domestic consumers have not been exposed directly to real-time price signals. While this is changing with the roll-out of smart meters in many countries, the extent to which the average consumer will be willing or able to reduce demand in a predicable way during peak periods remains uncertain.

Also, experience shows that governments often come under pressure to intervene in markets if prices rise sharply during periods of scarcity, thus undermining a basic tenet of the market model, with EU gas price cap strategies floated as one option.

Given that gas continues to play a crucial role in balancing supply and demand for electricity, the options available to governments are limited, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is harder than it appears for policymakers. One approach would be would be to keep faith with the liberalised market model, with limited interventions to help consumers in the short term, while ultimately relying on innovations in demand side technologies and alternatives to gas as a means of balancing systems with high shares of variable renewables.

An alternative scenario may see a return to old style national pricing policies, involving a move away from marginal pricing and spot markets, even as the EU prepares to revamp its electricity market in response. In the past, in particular during the post-WWII decades, and until markets were liberalised in the 1990s, governments have taken such an approach, centrally determining prices based on the costs of delivering long term system plans. The operation of gas plants and fuel procurement would become a much more regulated activity under such a model.

Many argue that this ‘traditional model’ better suits a world in which governments have committed to long-term decarbonisation targets, and zero marginal cost sources, such as wind and solar, play a more dominant role in markets and begin to push down prices.

A crucial question for energy policy makers is how to exploit this deflationary effect of renewables and pass-on cost savings to consumers, whilst ensuring that the lights stay on.

Despite the promise of storage technologies such as grid-scale batteries and hydrogen produced from electrolysis, aside from highly polluting coal, no alternative to internationally sourced natural gas as a means of balancing electricity systems and ensuring our energy security is immediately available.

This fact, above all else, will constrain the ambitions of governments to fundamentally transform energy markets.

Ronan Bolton is Reader at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh and Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre. His book Making Energy Markets: The Origins of Electricity Liberalisation in Europe is to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News