Advancing Clean Coal Technology

SCE Wildfire Lawsuits allege utility equipment and power lines sparked deadly Los Angeles blazes; investigations, inverse condemnation, and stricter utility regulations focus on liability, vegetation management, and wildfire safety amid Santa Ana winds.

Key Points

Residents sue SCE, alleging power lines ignited LA wildfires; seeking compensation under inverse condemnation.

✅ Videos cited show sparking lines near alleged ignition points.

✅ SCE denies wrongdoing; probes and inspections ongoing.

✅ Inverse condemnation may apply regardless of negligence.

In the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, residents have initiated legal action, similar to other mega-fire lawsuits underway in California, against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging that the utility's equipment was responsible for sparking one of the most destructive fires. The fires have resulted in significant loss of life and property, prompting investigations into the causes and accountability of the involved parties.

The Fires and Their Impact

In early January 2025, Los Angeles experienced severe wildfires that ravaged neighborhoods, leading to the loss of at least 29 lives and the destruction of approximately 155 square kilometers of land. Areas such as Pacific Palisades and Altadena were among the hardest hit. The fires were exacerbated by arid conditions and strong Santa Ana winds, which contributed to their rapid spread and intensity.

Allegations Against Southern California Edison

Residents have filed lawsuits against SCE, asserting that the utility's equipment, particularly power lines, ignited the fires. Some plaintiffs have presented videos they claim show sparking power lines in the vicinity of the fire's origin. These legal actions seek to hold SCE accountable for the damages incurred, including property loss, personal injury, and emotional distress.

SCE's Response and Legal Context

Southern California Edison has denied any wrongdoing, stating that it has not detected any anomalies in its equipment that could have led to the fires. The utility has pledged to cooperate fully with investigations to determine the causes of the fires. California's legal framework, particularly the doctrine of "inverse condemnation," allows property owners to seek compensation from utilities for damages caused by public services, even without proof of negligence. This legal principle has been central in previous cases involving utility companies and wildfire damages, and similar allegations have arisen in other jurisdictions, such as an alleged faulty transformer case, highlighting shared risks.

Historical Context and Precedents

This situation is not unprecedented. In 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) faced similar allegations when its equipment was implicated in the Camp Fire, the deadliest wildfire in California's history. PG&E's equipment was found to have ignited the fire, and the company later pleaded guilty in the Camp Fire, leading to extensive litigation and financial repercussions for the company, while its bankruptcy plan won support from wildfire victims during restructuring. The case highlighted the significant risks utilities face regarding wildfire safety and the importance of maintaining infrastructure to prevent such disasters.

Implications for California's Utility Regulations

The current lawsuits against SCE underscore the ongoing challenges California faces in balancing utility operations with wildfire prevention, as regulators face calls for action amid rising electricity bills. The state has implemented stricter regulations and oversight, and lawmakers have moved to crack down on utility spending to mitigate wildfire risks associated with utility infrastructure. Utilities are now required to invest in enhanced safety measures, including equipment inspections, vegetation management, and the implementation of advanced technologies to detect and prevent potential fire hazards. These regulatory changes aim to reduce the incidence of utility-related wildfires and protect communities from future disasters.

The legal actions against Southern California Edison reflect the complex interplay between utility operations, public safety, and environmental stewardship. As investigations continue, the outcomes of these lawsuits may influence future policies and practices concerning utility infrastructure and wildfire prevention in California. The state remains committed to enhancing safety measures to protect its residents and natural resources from the devastating effects of wildfires.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BMW Hydrogen Fuel Cell Strategy positions iX5 and eDrive for zero-emission mobility, leveraging fuel cells, fast refueling, and hydrogen infrastructure as an alternative to BEVs, diversifying drivetrains across premium segments globally, rapidly.

Key Points

BMW's plan to commercialize hydrogen fuel-cell drivetrains like iX5 eDrive for scalable, zero-emission mobility.

✅ Fuel cells enable fast refueling and long range with water vapor only.

✅ Reduces reliance on lithium and cobalt via recyclable materials.

✅ Targets premium SUV iX5; limited pilots before broader rollout.

BMW is hanging in there with hydrogen, a stance mirrored in power companies' hydrogen outlook today. That’s what Oliver Zipse, the chairperson of BMW, reiterated during an interview last week in Goodwood, England. 

“After the electric car, which has been going on for about 10 years and scaling up rapidly, the next trend will be hydrogen,” he says. “When it’s more scalable, hydrogen will be the hippest thing to drive.”

BMW has dabbled with the idea of using hydrogen for power for years, even though it is obscure and niche compared to the current enthusiasm surrounding vehicles powered by electricity. In 2005, BMW built 100 “Hydrogen 7” vehicles that used the fuel to power their V12 engines. It unveiled the fuel cell iX5 Hydrogen concept car at the International Motor Show Germany in 2021. 

In August, the company started producing fuel-cell systems for a production version of its hydrogen-powered iX5 sport-utility vehicle. Zipse indicated it would be sold in the United States within the next five years, although in a follow-up phone call a spokesperson declined to confirm that point. Bloomberg previously reported that BMW will start delivering fewer than 100 of the iX5 hydrogen vehicles to select partners in Europe, the U.S., and Asia, where Asia leads on hydrogen fuel cells today, from the end of this year.

All told, BMW will eventually offer five different drivetrains to help diversify alternative-fuel options within the group, as hybrids gain renewed momentum in the U.S., Zipse says.

“To say in the U.K. about 2030 or the U.K. and in Europe in 2035, there’s only one drivetrain, that is a dangerous thing,” he says. “For the customers, for the industry, for employment, for the climate, from every angle you look at, that is a dangerous path to go to.” 

Zipse’s hydrogen dreams could even extend to the group’s crown jewel, Rolls-Royce, which BMW has owned since 1998. The “magic carpet ride” driving style that has become Rolls-Royce’s signature selling point is flexible enough to be powered by alternatives to electricity, says Rolls-Royce CEO Torsten Müller-Ötvös. 

“To house, let’s say, fuel cell batteries: Why not? I would not rule that out,” Müller-Ötvös told reporters during a roundtable conversation in Goodwood on the eve of the debut of the company’s first-ever electric vehicle, Spectre. “There is a belief in the group that this is maybe the long-term future.”

Such a vehicle would contain a hydrogen fuel-cell drivetrain combined with BMW’s electric “eDrive” system. It works by converting hydrogen into electricity to reach an electrical output of up to 125 kW/170 horsepower and total system output of nearly 375hp, with water vapor as the only emission, according to the brand.

Hydrogen’s big advantage over electric power, as EVs versus fuel cells debates note, is that it can supply fuel cells stored in carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic tanks. “There will [soon] be markets where you must drive emission-free, but you do not have access to public charging infrastructure,” Zipse says. “You could argue, well you also don’t have access to hydrogen infrastructure, but this is very simple to do: It’s a tank which you put in there like an old [gas] tank, and you recharge it every six months or 12 months.”

Fuel cells at BMW would also help reduce its dependency on raw materials like lithium and cobalt, because the hydrogen-based system uses recyclable components made of aluminum, steel, and platinum. 

Zipse’s continued commitment to prioritizing hydrogen has become an increasingly outlier position in the automotive world. In the last five years, electric-only vehicles have become the dominant alternative fuel — as the age of electric cars dawns ahead of schedule — if not yet on the road, where fewer than 3% of new cars have plugs, at least at car shows and new-car launches.

Rivals Mercedes-Benz and Audi scrapped their own plans to develop fuel cell vehicles and instead have poured tens of billions of dollars into developing pure-electric vehicle, including Daimler's electrification plan initiatives. Porsche went public to finance its own electric aspirations. 

BMW will make half of all new-car sales electric by 2030 across the group, with many expecting most drivers to go electric within a decade, which includes MINI and Rolls-Royce. 
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Line connects Bipole III to Minnesota, raising export capacity, as NEB hearings weigh Indigenous rights, treaty obligations, environmental assessment, cumulative effects, and cross-border hydroelectric infrastructure impacts, land access, socio-economic concerns, and regulatory review.

Key Points

A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba to Minnesota under review on Indigenous rights and environment concerns.

✅ Connects Bipole III to Minnesota to boost exports

✅ NEB hearings include Indigenous rights and treaty issues

✅ Environmental and access impacts debated in regulatory review

Concerned Indigenous groups asked the National Energy Board this week to take into consideration existing and future impacts and treaty rights, which have prompted a halt to Site C work elsewhere, when considering whether to OK a new hydro transmission line between Manitoba and Minnesota.

Friday was the last day of the oral traditional evidence hearings in Winnipeg on Manitoba Hydro's Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission project.

The international project will connect Manitoba Hydro's Bipole III transmission line to Minnesota and increase the province's electricity export capacity to 3185 MW from 2300 MW.

#google#

During the hearings Indigenous groups brought forward concerns and evidence of environmental degradation, echoing Site C dam opponents in other regions, and restricted access to traditional lands.

Ramona Neckoway, a member of the Nelson House First Nation, talked about her concern about the scope of Manitoba Hydro's application to the NEB.

"It's only concerned with a narrow 213 km corridor and thus it erases the histories, socio-economic impacts and the environmental degradation attached to this energy source," said Neckoway.

Prior to the hearings the board stated it did not intend to assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of upstream or downstream facilities associated with electricity production, even as a utilities watchdog on Site C stability raised questions elsewhere.

However, the board did hear evidence from upstream and downstream affected communities despite objection from Manitoba Hydro lawyers.

"Manitoba Hydro objected to us being here, saying that we are irrelevant, but we are not irrelevant," said Elder Tommy Monias from Cross Lake First Nation.

Manitoba Hydro representative Bruce Owen said, "We respect the NEB hearing process and look forward to the input of all interested parties."

The hearings provided a rare opportunity for First Nations communities, similar to Ontario First Nations urging action, to voice their concerns about the line on a federal level.

"One of the hopes is that this project can't be built until a system-wide assessment is made," said Dr. Peter Kulchyski, an expert witness for the southern chiefs organization and professor of Native Studies at the University of Manitoba.

Hearings continue

The line is already under construction on the American side of the border as the NEB public hearings continue until June 22 with cross examinations and final arguments from Manitoba Hydro and intervenor groups.

The NEB's final decision on the Manitoba-Minnesota transmission line, amid an energy board delay recommendation, will be made before March 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Washington County solar farm incentives aim to steer projects to industrial sites with tax breaks, underground grid connections, decommissioning bonds, and wildlife corridors, balancing zoning, historic preservation, and Maryland renewable energy mandates.

Key Points

Policies steer solar to industrial sites with tax breaks, buried lines, and bonds, aligning with zoning and state goals.

✅ Tax breaks to favor rooftops and parking canopies

✅ Bury new grid lines to shift projects to industrial parks

✅ Require decommissioning bonds and wildlife corridors

Incentives for establishing solar farms at industrial spaces instead of on prime farmland are among the ideas the Washington County Planning Commission is recommending for the county to update its policies regarding solar farms.

Potential incentives would include tax breaks on solar equipment and requiring developers to put power-grid connections and line extensions underground, a move tied to grid upgrade cost debates in other regions, Planning Commission members said during a Monday meeting.

The tax break could make it more attractive for a developer to put a solar farm on a roof or over a parking lot, similar to California's building-solar requirement policies that favor rooftop generation, which could cost more than putting it on farmland, said Commission member Dave Kline, who works for FirstEnergy.

Requiring a company to bury new transmission lines could steer them to industrial or business parks where, theoretically, transmission lines are more readily available, Kline said Wednesday in a phone interview.

Chairman Clint Wiley suggested talking to industrial property owners to create a list of industrial sites that make sense for a solar site, which could generate extra income for the property owner.

Commission members also talked about requiring a wildlife corridor. Anne Arundel County requires such a corridor if a solar site is over 15 acres, according to Jill Baker, deputy director of planning and zoning. The solar site is broken into sections so animals such as deer can get through, she said.

However, that means the solar farm would take up more agricultural land, Commission member Jeremiah Weddle said. Weddle, a farmer, has repeatedly voiced concerns about solar farms using prime farmland.

County zoning law already states solar farms are prohibited in Rural Legacy Areas, Priority Preservation Areas, and within Antietam Overlay zones that preserve the Antietam National Battlefield viewshed. They also cannot be built on land with permanent preservation easements, Baker said.

However, a big reason county officials are looking to strengthen county policies for solar generating systems, or solar farms, is a recent court decision that ruled the Maryland Public Service Commission can preempt county zoning law when it comes to large solar farms.

County zoning law defines a solar energy generating system as a solar facility, with multiple solar arrays, tied into the power grid and whose primary purpose is to generate power to distribute and/or sell into the public utility grid rather than consuming that power on site.

The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in July that the Public Service Commission can preempt local zoning regarding solar farms larger than 2 megawatts. But the ruling also stated local government is a "significant participant in the process" and the state commission must give "due consideration" to local zoning laws.

County officials are looking at recommendations for solar farms, whether they are over 2 megawatts or not.

Solar farms are a popular issue statewide, especially with Maryland solar subscriptions expanding, and were discussed at a recent Maryland Association of Counties meeting for planners, Planning and Zoning Director Stephen Goodrich said.

The thinking is the best way for counties to express their opinions about a solar project is to participate in the state commission's local public hearings, where issues like how solar owners are paid often arise, Goodrich said. Another popular idea is for the county to continue to follow its process, which requires a public hearing for a special exception to establish a solar farm. That will help the county form an opinion, on individual cases, to offer the state commission, he said.

Recommendations discussed by the Planning Commission include:

A break on personal property taxes, which is on equipment, including affordable battery storage that can firm output, to steer developers away from areas where the county doesn't want solar farms. The Board of County Commissioners have been split on tax-break agreements for solar farms, with a majority recently granting a few.

Protecting valuable historic sites.

Requiring a decommissioning bond for removing the equipment at the end of the solar farm's life. The bond is protection in case the company goes bankrupt. The county commissioners have been making such a bond a requirement when granting recent tax breaks.

Looking at allowing solar farms in stormwater-management areas.

Other counties, particularly in Western Maryland and on the Eastern Shore, are having issues with solar farms even as research to improve solar and wind advances, because land is cheaper and there are wide-open spaces, Goodrich said.

Many solar projects are being developed or proposed because state lawmakers passed legislation requiring 50% of electricity produced in the state to come from renewable sources by 2030, and a federal plan to expand solar is also shaping expectations. Of that 50%, 14.5% is to come from solar energy.

In Maryland, the average number of homes that can be powered by 1 megawatt of solar energy is about 110, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association's website.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Energy Debate: Nuclear Power and LNG divides British Columbia, as a new survey weighs zero-emission clean energy, hydroelectric capacity, the Site C dam, EV mandates, energy security, rising costs, and blackout risks.

Key Points

A BC-wide debate on power choices balancing nuclear, LNG, hydro, costs, climate goals, EVs, and grid reliability.

✅ Survey: 43% support nuclear, 40% oppose in BC

✅ 55% back LNG expansion, led by Southern BC

✅ Hydro at 90%; Site C adds 1,100 MW by 2025

There is a long-term need to produce more electricity to meet population and economic growth needs and, in particular, create new clean energy sources, with two new BC generating stations recently commissioned contributing to capacity.

Increasingly, in the worldwide discourse on climate change, nuclear power plants are being touted as a zero-emission clean energy source, with Ontario exploring large-scale nuclear to expand capacity, and a key solution towards meeting reduced emissions goals. New technological advancements could make nuclear power far safer than existing plant designs.

When queried on whether British Columbia should support nuclear power for electricity generation, respondents in a new province-wide survey by Research Co. were split, with 43% in favour and 40% against.

Levels of support reached 46% in Metro Vancouver, 41% in the Fraser Valley, 44% in Southern BC, 39% in Northern BC, and 36% on Vancouver Island.

The closest nuclear power plant to BC is the Columbia Generating Station, located in southern Washington State.

The safe use of nuclear power came to the forefront following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster when the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan triggered a large tsunami that damaged the plant’s emergency generators. Japan subsequently shut off many of its nuclear power plants and increased its reliance on fossil fuel imports, but in recent years there has been a policy reversal to restart shuttered nuclear plants to provide the nation with improved energy security.

Over the past decade, Germany has also been undergoing a transition away from nuclear power. But in an effort to replace Russian natural gas, Germany is now using more coal for power generation than ever before in decades, while Ontario’s electricity outlook suggests a shift to a dirtier mix, and it is looking to expand its use of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Last summer, German chancellor Olaf Scholz told the CBC he wants Canada to increase its shipments of LNG gas to Europe. LNG, which is greener compared to coal and oil, is generally seen as a transitionary fuel source for parts of the world that currently depend on heavy polluting fuels for power generation.

When the Research Co. survey asked BC residents whether they support the further development of the province’s LNG industry, including LNG electricity demand that BC Hydro says justifies Site C, 55% of respondents were supportive, while 29% were opposed and 17% undecided.

Support for the expansion of the LNG is highest in Southern BC (67%), followed by the Fraser Valley (56%), Metro Vancouver (also 56%), Northern BC (55%), and Vancouver Island (41%).

A larger proportion of BC residents are against any idea of the provincial government moving to ban the use of natural gas for stoves and heating in new buildings, with 45% opposed and 39% in support.

Significant majorities of BC residents are concerned that energy costs could become too expensive, and a report on coal phase-outs underscores potential cost and effectiveness concerns, with 84% expressing concern for residents and 66% for businesses. As well, 70% are concerned that energy shortages could lead to measures such as rationing and rolling blackouts.

Currently, about 90% of BC’s electricity is produced by hydroelectric dams, but this fluctuates throughout the year — at times, BC imports coal- and gas-generated power from the United States when hydro output is low.

According to BC Hydro’s five-year electrification plan released in September 2021, it is estimated BC has a sufficient supply of clean electricity only by 2030, including the capacity of the Site C dam, which is slated to open in 2025. The $16 billion dam will have an output capacity of 1,100 megawatts or enough power for the equivalent of 450,000 homes.

The provincial government’s strategy for pushing vehicles towards becoming dependent on the electrical grid also necessitates a reliable supply of power, prompting BC Hydro’s first call for power in 15 years to prepare for electrification. Most BC residents support the provincial government’s requirement for all new car and passenger truck sales to be zero-emission by 2035, with 75% supporting the goal and 21% opposed.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News