Electricity News in May 2021

Poland Solar PV Boom drives record installations, rooftop and utility-scale growth, EU-aligned incentives, net metering, PPAs, and auctions, pushing capacity toward 8.3 GW by 2024 while prosumers, grid upgrades, and energy management expand.

Key Points

A rapid expansion of Poland's PV market, driven by incentives, PPAs, and prosumers across rooftop and utility-scale.

✅ 2.2 GW added in 2020, triple 2019, led by small-scale prosumers

✅ Incentives: My Current, Clean Air, Agroenergia, net metering

✅ Growth toward 8.3 GW by 2024; PPAs and auctions scale utility

Photovoltaics (PV) is booming in Poland. According to SolarPower Europe, 2.2 gigawatts (GW) of solar power was installed in the country in 2020 - nearly three times as much as the 823 megawatts (MW) installed in 2019. This places Poland fourth across Europe, behind Germany, where a solar power boost has been underway (4.8 GW added in 2020), the Netherlands (2.8 GW) and Spain (2.6 GW). So all eyes in the industry are on the up-and-coming Polish market. The solar industry will come together at Intersolar Europe Restart 2021, taking place from October 6 to 8 at Messe München. As part of The smarter E Europe Restart 2021, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and service providers will all present their products and innovations at the world's leading exhibition for the solar industry.

All signs point to continued strong growth, with renewables on course to set records across markets. An intermediate, more conservative EU Market Outlook forecast from SolarPower Europe expects the Polish solar market to grow by 35 percent annually, meaning that it will have achieved a PV capacity of 8.3 GW by 2024 as solar reshapes Northern Europe's power prices over the medium term. "PV in Poland is booming at every level - from private and commercial PV rooftop systems to large free-standing installations," says Dr. Stanislaw Pietruszko, President of the Polish Society for Photovoltaics (PV Poland). According to the PV Poland, the number of registered small-scale systems - those under 50 kilowatts (kW) - with an average capacity of 6.5 kilowatts (kW) grew from 155,000 (992 MW) at the end of 2019 to 457,400 (3 GW) by the end of 2020. These small-scale systems account for 75 percent of all PV capacity installed in Poland. Larger PV projects with a capacity of 4 GW have already been approved for grid connection, further attesting to the forecast growth.

8,000 people employed in the PV industry
Andrzej Kazmierski, Deputy Director of the Department for Low-emission Economy within the Polish Ministry of Economic Development, Labour and Technology, explained in the Intersolar Europe webinar "A Rising Star: PV Market Poland" at the end of March 2021 that the PV market volume in Poland currently amounts to 2.2 billion euros, with 8,000 people employed in the industry. According to Kazmierski, the implementation of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) in the EU, intended to promote energy communities and collective prosumers as well as long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs), will be a critical challenge, and ongoing Berlin PV barriers debates highlight the importance of regulatory coordination. Renewable energy must be integrated with greater focus into the energy system, and energy management and the grids themselves must be significantly expanded as researchers work to improve solar and wind integration. The government seeks to create a framework for stable market growth as well as to strengthen local value creation.

Government incentive programs in Poland
In addition to drastically reduced PV costs, reinforced by China's rapid PV expansion, and growing environmental consciousness, the Polish PV market is being advanced by an array of government-funded incentive programs such as My Current (230 million euros) and Clean Air as well as thermo-modernization. The incentive program Agroenergia (50 million euros) is specifically geared toward farmers and offers low-interest loans or direct subsidies for the construction of solar installations with capacities between 50 kW and 1 MW. Incentive programs for net metering have been extended to small and medium enterprises to provide stronger support for prosumers. Solar installations producing less than 50 kW benefit from a lower value-added tax of just eight percent (compared to the typical 23 percent). The acquisition and installation costs can be offset against income, in turn reducing income tax.
Government-funded auctions are also used to finance large-scale facilities, where the government selects operators of systems running on renewable energy who offer the lowest electricity price and funds the construction of their facilities. The winner of an auction back in December was an investment project for the construction of a 200 MW solar park in the Pomeranian Voivodeship.

Companies turn to solar power for self-consumption
Furthermore, Poland is now playing host to larger solar projects that do not rely on subsidies, as Europe's demand lifts US equipment makers amid supply shifts, such as a 64 MW solar farm in Witnica being built on the border to Germany whose electricity will be sold to a cement factory via a multi-year power purchase agreement. A new factory in Konin (Wielkopolska Voivodeship) for battery cathode materials to be used in electric cars will be powered with 100-percent renewable electricity. Plus, large companies are increasingly turning to solar power for self-consumption. For example, a leading manufacturer of metal furniture in Suwalki (Podlaskie Voivodeship) in northeastern Poland has recently started meeting its demand using a 2 MW roof-mounted and free-standing installation on the company premises.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Enegix Base One Green Hydrogen Plant will produce renewable hydrogen via electrolysis in Ceara, Brazil, leveraging 3.4 GW baseload renewables, offshore wind, and hydro to scale clean energy, storage, and export logistics.

Key Points

A $5.4bn Ceara, Brazil project to produce 600m kg of green hydrogen annually using 3.4 GW of baseload renewables.

✅ 3.4 GW baseload from hydro and offshore wind pipelines

✅ Targets 600m kg green hydrogen per year via electrolysis

✅ Focus on storage, transport, and export supply chains

In March, Enegix Energy announced some of the most ambitious hydrogen plans the world has ever seen. The company signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the government of the Brazilian state of Ceará to build the world’s largest green hydrogen plant in the state on the country’s north-eastern coast, and the figures are staggering.

The Base One facility will produce more than 600 million kilograms of green hydrogen annually from 3.4GW of baseload renewable energy, and receive $5.4bn in investment to get the project off the ground and producing within four years.

Green hydrogen, hydrogen produced by electrolysis that is powered by renewables, has significant potential as a clean energy source. Already seeing increased usage in the transport sector, the power source boasts the energy efficiency and the environmental viability to be a cornerstone of the world’s energy mix.

Yet practical challenges have often derailed large-scale green hydrogen projects, from the inherent obstacle of requiring separate renewable power facilities to the logistical and technological challenges of storing and transporting hydrogen. Could vast investment, clever planning, and supportive governments and programs like the DOE’s hydrogen hubs initiative help Enegix to deliver on green hydrogen’s oft-touted potential?

Brazilian billions
The Base One project is exceptional not only for its huge scale, but the timing of its construction, with demand for hydrogen set to increase dramatically over the next few decades. Figures from Wood Mackenzie suggest that hydrogen could account for 1.4 billion tonnes of energy demand by 2050, one-tenth of the world’s supply, with green hydrogen set to be the majority of this figure.

Yet considering that, prior to the announcement of the Enegix project, global green hydrogen capacity was just 94MW, advances in offshore green hydrogen and the development of a project of this size and scope could scale up the role of green hydrogen by orders of magnitude.

“We really need to [advance clean energy] without any emissions on a completely clean, carbon neutral and net-zero framework, and so we needed access to a large amount of green energy projects,” explains Wesley Cooke, founder and CEO of Enegix, a goal aligned with analyses that zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is possible, discussing the motivation behind the vast project.

With these ambitious goals in mind, the company needed to find a region with a particular combination of political will and environmental traits to enable such a project to take off.

“When we looked at all of these key things: pipeline for renewables, access to water, cost of renewables, and appetite for renewables, Brazil really stood out to us,” Cooke continues. “The state of Ceará, that we’ve got an MOU with the government in at the moment, ticks all of these boxes.”

Ceará’s own clean energy plans align with Enegix’s, at least in terms of their ambition and desire for short-term development. Last October, the state announced that it plans to add 5GW of new offshore wind capacity in the next five years. With BI Energia alone providing $2.5bn in investment for its 1.2GW Camocim wind facility, there is significant financial muscle behind these lofty ambitions.

“One thing I should add is that Brazil is very blessed when it comes to baseload renewables,” says Cooke. “They have an incredibly high percentage of their country-wide energy that comes from renewable sources and a lot of this is in part due to the vast hydro schemes that they have for hydro dams. Not a lot of countries have that, and specifically when you’re trying to produce hydrogen, having access to vast amounts of renewables [is vital].”

Changing perceptions and tackling challenges
This combination of vast investment and integration with the existing renewable power infrastructure of Ceará could have cultural impacts too. The combination of state support for and private investment in clean energy offsets many of the narratives emerging from Brazil concerning its energy policies and environmental protections, even as debates over clean energy's trade-offs persist in Brazil and beyond, from the infamous Brumadinho disaster to widespread allegations of illegal deforestation and gold mining.

“I can’t speak for the whole of Brazil, but if we look at Ceará specifically, and even from what we’ve seen from a federal government standpoint, they have been talking about a hydrogen roadmap for Brazil for quite some time now,” says Cooke, highlighting the state’s long-standing support for green hydrogen. “I think we came in at the perfect time with a very solid plan for what we wanted to do, [and] we’ve had nothing but great cooperation, and even further than just cooperation, excitement around the MOU.”

This narrative shift could help overcome one of the key challenges facing many hydrogen projects, the idea that its practical difficulties render it fundamentally unsuitable for baseload power generation. By establishing a large-scale green hydrogen facility in a country that has recently struggled to present itself as one that is invested in renewables, the Base One facility could be the ultimate proof that such clean hydrogen projects are viable.

Nevertheless, practical challenges remain, as is the case with any energy project of this scale. Cooke mentions a number of solutions to two of the obstacles facing hydrogen production around the world: renewable energy storage and transportation of the material.

“We were looking at compressed hydrogen via specialised tankers [and] we were looking at liquefied hydrogen, [as] you have to get liquefied hydrogen very cool to around -253°, and you can use 30% to 40% of your total energy that you started with just to get it down to that temperature,” Cooke explains.

“The other aspect is that if you’re transporting this internationally, you really have to think about the supply chain. If you land in a country like Indonesia, that’s wonderful, but how do you get it from Indonesia to the customers that need it? What is the supply chain? What does that look like? Does it exist today?”

The future of green hydrogen
These practical challenges present something of a chicken and egg problem for the future of green hydrogen: considerable up-front investment is required for functions such as storage and transport, but the difficulties of these functions can scare off investors and make such investments uncommon.

Yet with the world’s environmental situation increasingly dire, more dramatic, and indeed risky, moves are needed to alter its energy mix, and Enegix is one company taking responsibility and accepting these risks.

“We need to have the renewables to match the dirty fuel types,” Cooke says. “This [investment] will really come from the decisions that are being made right now by large-scale companies, multi-billion-euro-per-year revenue companies, committing to building out large scale factories in Europe and Asia, to support PEM [hydrolysis].”

This idea of large-scale green hydrogen is also highly ambitious, considering the current state of the energy source. The International Renewable Energy Agency reports that around 95% of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, so hydrogen has a long ways to go to clean up its own carbon footprint before going on to displace fossil fuel-driven industries.

Yet this displacement is exactly what Enegix is targeting. Cooke notes that the ultimate goal of Enegix is not simply to increase hydrogen production for use in a single industry, such as clean vehicles. Instead, the idea is to develop green hydrogen infrastructure to the point where it can replace coal and oil as a source of baseload power, leapfrogging other renewables to form the bedrock of the world’s future energy mix.

“The problem with [renewable] baseload is that they’re intermittent; the wind’s not always blowing and the sun’s not always shining and batteries are still very expensive, although that is changing. When you put those projects together and look at the levelised cost of energy, this creates a chasm, really, for baseload.

“And for us, this is really where we believe that hydrogen needs to be thought of in more detail and this is what we’re really evangelising about at the moment.”

A more hydrogen-reliant energy mix could also bring social benefits, with Cooke suggesting that the same traits that make hydrogen unwieldy in countries with established energy infrastructures could make hydrogen more practically viable in other parts of the world.

“When you look at emerging markets and developing markets at the moment, the power infrastructure in some cases can be quite messy,” Cooke says. “You’ve got the potential for either paying for the power or extending your transmission grid, but rarely being able to do both of those.

“I think being able to do that last mile piece, utilising liquid organic hydrogen carrier as an energy vector that’s very cost-effective, very scalable, non-toxic, and non-flammable; [you can] get that power where you need it.

“We believe hydrogen has the potential to be very cost-effective at scale, supporting a vision of cheap, abundant electricity over time, but also very modular and usable in many different use cases.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

AIDAsol shore power Rostock-Warnemfcnde delivers cold ironing for cruise ships, up to 20 MVA at berths P7 and P8, cutting port emissions during berthing and advancing AIDA's green cruising strategy across European ports.

Key Points

Rostock-Warnemfcnde shore power supplies two cruise ships up to 20 MVA, enabling cold ironing and cutting emissions.

✅ Up to 20 MVA; powers two cruise ships at berths P7 and P8

✅ Enables cold ironing for AIDA fleet to reduce berth emissions

✅ Part of AIDA green cruising with fuel cells and batteries

In a ceremony held in Rostock-Warnemünde yesterday during Germany’s 12th National Maritime Conference, the 2,174-passenger cruise ship AIDAsol inaugurated Europe’s largest shore power plants for ships.

The power plant has been established under a joint agreement between AIDA Cruises, a unit of Carnival Corporation & plc (NYSE/LSE: CCL; NYSE: CUK), the state government of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the city of Rostock and the Port of Rostock.

“With our green cruising strategy, we have been investing in a sustainable cruise market for many years,” said AIDA Cruises President Felix Eichhorn. “The shore power plant in Rostock-Warnemünde is another important step — after the facility in Hamburg — on our way to an emission-neutral cruise that we want to achieve with our fleet. I would like to thank the state government of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and all partners involved for the good and trusting cooperation. Together, we are sending out an important signal, not just in Germany, but throughout Europe.”

CAN POWER TWO CRUISE SHIPS AT A TIME
The shore power plant, which was completed in summer 2020, is currently the largest in Europe and aligns with port electrification efforts such as the all-electric berth at London Gateway in the UK. With an output of up to 20 megavolt amperes (MVA), two cruise ships can be supplied with electricity at the same time at berths P7 and P8 in Warnemünde.

In regular passenger operation AIDAsol needs up to 4.5 megawatts per hour (MWh) of electricity.

The use of shore power to supply ships with energy is a decisive step in AIDA Cruises’ plans to reduce local emissions to zero during berthing, complementing recent progress with electric ships on the B.C. coast, as a cruise ship typically stays in port around 40% of its operating time.

As early as 2004, when the order for the construction of AIDAdiva was placed, and for all other ships put into service in subsequent years, the company has considered the use of shore power as an option for environmentally friendly ship operation.

Since 2017, AIDA Cruises has been using Europe’s first shore power plant in Hamburg-Altona, where AIDAsol is in regular operation, while operators like BC Ferries add hybrid ferries to expand low-emission service in Canada. Currently, 10 ships in the AIDA fleet can either use shore power where available or are technically prepared for it.

The aim is to convert all ships built from 2000 onwards, supporting future solutions like offshore charging with wind power.

With AIDA Cruises starting a cruise season from Kiel, Germany, on May 22, AIDAsol will also be the first cruise ship to complete the final tests on a newly built shore power plant there, as innovations such as Berlin’s electric flying ferry highlight the broader shift toward electrified waterways. Construction of that plant is the result of a joint initiative by the state government of Schleswig-Holstein, the city and the port of Kiel and AIDA Cruises. AIDAsol is scheduled to arrive in Kiel on the afternoon of May 13.

As part of its green cruising strategy, AIDA Cruises has been investing in a sustainable cruise operation for many years, paralleling urban shifts toward zero-emission bus fleets in Berlin. Other steps on the path to the zero emission ship of the future are already in preparation. This year, AIDAnova will receive the first fuel cell to be used on an ocean-going cruise ship. In 2022, the largest battery storage system to date in cruise shipping will go into operation on board an AIDA ship, similar to advances in battery-electric ferries in the U.S. In addition, the company is already addressing the question of how renewable fuels can be used on board cruise ships in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EU Solar Impact on Electricity Prices highlights how rising solar PV penetration drives negative pricing, shifts peak hours, pressures wholesale markets, and challenges grid balancing, interconnection, and flexibility amid changing demand and renewables growth.

Key Points

Explains how rising solar PV cuts wholesale prices, shifts negative-price hours, and strains grid flexibility.

✅ Negative pricing events surge with higher solar penetration.

✅ Afternoon price dips replace night-time wind-led lows.

✅ Grid balancing, interconnectors, and flexibility become critical.

The latest EU electricity market report has confirmed the affect deeper penetration of solar is having on wholesale electricity prices more broadly.

The Quarterly Report on European Electricity Markets for the final three months of last year noted the number of periods of negative electricity pricing doubled from 2019, to almost 1,600 such events, as global renewables set new records in deployment across markets.

Having experienced just three negative price events in 2019, the Netherlands recorded almost 100 last year “amid a dramatic increase in solar PV capacity,” in the nation, according to the report.

Whilst stressing the exceptional nature of the Covid-19 pandemic on power consumption patterns, the quarterly update also noted a shift in the hours during which negative electric pricing occurred in renewables poster child Germany. Previously such events were most common at night, during periods of high wind speed and low demand, but 2020 saw a switch to afternoon negative pricing. “Thus,” stated the report, “solar PV became the main driver behind prices falling into negative territory in the German market in 2020, as Germany's solar boost accelerated, and also put afternoon prices under pressure generally.”

The report also highlighted two instances of scarce electricity–in mid September and on December 9–as evidence of the problems associated with accommodating a rising proportion of intermittent clean energy capacity into the grid, and called for more joined-up cross-border power networks, amid pushback from Russian oil and gas across the continent.

Rising solar generation–along with higher gas output, year on year–also helped the Netherlands generate a net surplus of electricity last year, after being a net importer “for many years.” The EU report also noted a beneficial effect of rising solar generation capacity on Hungary‘s national electricity account, and cited a solar “boom” in that country and Poland, mirroring rapid solar PV growth in China in recent years.

With Covid-19 falls in demand helping renewables generate more of Europe's electricity (39%) than fossil fuels (36%) for the first time, as renewables surpassed fossil fuels across Europe, the market report observed the 5% of the bloc's power produced from solar closed in on the 6% accounted for by hard coal. In the final three months of the year, European solar output rose 12%, year on year, to 18 TWh and “the increase was almost single-handedly driven by Spain,” the study added.

With coal and lignite-fired power plunging 22% last year across the bloc, it is estimated the European power sector reduced its carbon footprint 14% as part of Europe's green surge although the quarterly report warned cold weather, lower wind speeds and rising gas prices in the opening months of this year are likely to see carbon emissions rebound.

There was good news on the transport front, though, with the report stating the scale of the European “electrically-charged vehicle” fleet doubled in 2020, to 2 million, with almost half a million of the new registrations arriving in the final months of the year. That meant cars with plug sockets accounted for a remarkable 17% of new purchases in Q4, twice the proportion seen in China and a slice of the pie six times bigger than such products claimed in the U.S.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

European Electricity Market Trends 2020 highlight decarbonisation, rising renewables, EV adoption, shifting energy mix, COVID-19 impacts, fuel switching, hydro, wind and solar growth, gas price dynamics, and wholesale electricity price increases.

Key Points

EU power in 2020 saw lower emissions, more renewables, EV growth, demand shifts, and higher wholesale prices.

✅ Power sector CO2 down 14% on higher renewables, lower coal

✅ Renewables 39% vs fossil 36%; hydro, wind, solar expanded

✅ EV share hit 17%; wholesale prices rose with gas, ETS costs

According to the Market Observatory for Energy DG Energy report, the COVID-19 pandemic and favorable weather conditions are the two key drivers of the trends experienced within the European electricity market in 2020. However, the two drivers were exceptional or seasonal.

The key trends within Europe’s electricity market include:

1. Decrease in power sector’s carbon emissions

As a result of the increase in renewables generation and decrease in fossil-fueled power generation in 2020, the power sector was able to reduce its carbon footprint by 14% in 2020. The decrease in the sector’s carbon footprint in 2020 is similar to trends witnessed in 2019 when fuel switching was the main factor behind the decarbonisation trend.

However, most of the drivers in 2020 were exceptional or seasonal (the pandemic, warm winter, high
hydro generation). However, the opposite is expected in 2021, with the first months of 2021 having relatively cold weather, lower wind speeds and higher gas prices, with stunted hydro and nuclear output also cited, developments which suggest that the carbon emissions and intensity of the power sector could rise.

The European Union is targeting to completely decarbonise its power sector by 2050 through the introduction of supporting policies such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the Renewable Energy Directive and legislation addressing air pollutant emissions from industrial installations, with expectations that low-emissions sources will cover most demand growth in the coming years.

According to the European Environment Agency, Europe halved its power sector’s carbon emissions in 2019 from 1990 levels.

2. Changes in energy consumption

EU consumption of electricity fell by -4% as majority of industries did not operate at full level during the first half of 2020. Although majority of EU residents stayed at home, meaning an increase in residential energy use, rising demand by households could not reverse falls in other sectors of the economy.

However, as countries renewed COVID-19 restrictions, energy consumption during the 4th quarter was closer to the “normal levels” than in the first three quarters of 2020. 

The increase in energy consumption in the fourth quarter of 2020 was also partly due to colder temperatures compared to 2019 and signs of surging electricity demand in global markets.

3. Increase in demand for EVs

As the electrification of the transport system intensifies, the demand for electric vehicles increased in 2020 with almost half a million new registrations in the fourth quarter of 2020. This was the highest figure on record and translated into an unprecedented 17% market share, more than two times higher than in China and six times higher than in the United States.

However, the European Environment Agency (EEA)argues that the EV registrations were lower in 2020 compared to 2019. EEA states that in 2019, electric car registrations were close to 550 000 units, having reached 300 000 units in 2018.

4. Changes in the region’s energy mix and increase in renewable energy generation

The structure of the region’s energy mix changed in 2020, according to the report.

Owing to favorable weather conditions, hydro energy generation was very high and Europe was able to expand its portfolio of renewable energy generation such that renewables (39%) exceeded the share of fossil fuels (36%) for the first time ever in the EU energy mix.

Rising renewable generation was greatly assisted by 29 GW of wind and solar capacity additions in 2020, which is comparable to 2019 levels. Despite disrupting the supply chains of wind and solar resulting in project delays, the pandemic did not significantly slow down renewables’ expansion.

In fact, coal and lignite energy generation fell by 22% (-87 TWh) and nuclear output dropped by 11% (-79 TWh). On the other hand, gas energy generation was not significantly impacted owing to favorable prices which intensified coal-to-gas and lignite-to-gas switching, even as renewables crowd out gas in parts of the market.

5. Retirement of coal energy generation intensify

 As the outlook for emission-intensive technologies worsens and carbon prices rise, more and more early coal retirements have been announced. Utilities in Europe are expected to continue transitioning from coal energy generation under efforts to meet stringent carbon emissions reduction targets and as they try to prepare themselves for future business models that they anticipate to be entirely low-carbon reliant.

6. Increase in wholesale electricity prices

In recent months, more expensive emission allowances, along with rising gas prices, have driven up wholesale electricity prices on many European markets to levels last seen at the beginning of 2019. The effect was most pronounced in countries that are dependent on coal and lignite. The wholesale electricity prices dynamic is expected to filter through to retail prices.

The rapid sales growth in the EVs sector was accompanied by expanding charging infrastructure. The number of high-power charging points per 100 km of highways rose from 12 to 20 in 2020.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Cascadia electrification accelerates renewable energy with wind and solar, EVs, heat pumps, and grid upgrades across British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon to decarbonize power, buildings, and transport at lower cost while creating jobs.

Key Points

Cascadia electrification is the shift to renewable grids, EVs, and heat pumps replacing fossil fuels.

✅ Wind and solar scale fast; gas and coal phase down

✅ EVs and heat pumps cut fuel costs and emissions

✅ Requires grid upgrades, policy, and social acceptance

Fifty years ago, a gasoline company’s TV ads showed an aging wooden windmill. As the wind died, it slowed to stillness. The ad asked: “But what do you do when the wind stops?” For the next several decades, fossil fuel providers and big utilities continued to denigrate renewable energy. Even the U.S. Energy Department deemed renewables “too rare, too diffuse, too distant, too uncertain and too ill-timed” to meaningfully contribute, as a top agency analyst put it in 2005.

Today we know that’s not true, especially in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon.

New research shows we could be collectively poised to pioneer a climate-friendly energy future for the globe — that renewable electricity can not only move Cascadia off of fossil fuels, but do so at an affordable price while creating some jobs along the way.

After decades of disinformation, this may sound like a wishful vision. But building a cleaner and more equitable economy — and doing so in just a few decades to head off the worst effects of climate change — is backed by a growing body of regional and international research.

Getting off fossil fuels is “feasible, necessary… and not very expensive” when compared to the earnings of the overall economy, said Jeffrey Sachs, an economist and global development expert at Columbia University.

Much of the confidence about the price tag comes down to this: Innovation and mass production have made wind and solar power installations cheaper than most fossil-fuelled power plants and today’s fastest-growing source of energy worldwide. The key to moving Cascadia’s economies away from fossil fuels, according to the latest research, is building more, prompting power companies to invest in carbon-free electricity as our go-to “fuel.”

However, doing that in time to help head off a cascading climatic crisis by mid-century means the region must take major steps in the next decade to speed the transition, researchers say. And that will require social buy-in.

The new research highlights three mutually supporting strategies that squeeze out fossil fuels:

Chefs and foodies are well-known fans of natural gas. Why, “Cooking with gas” is an expression for a reason. But one trendy Seattle restaurant-bar is getting by just fine with a climate-friendly alternative: electric induction cooktops.

Induction “burners” are just as controllable as gas burners and even faster to heat and cool, but produce less excess heat and zero air pollution. That made a huge difference to chef Stuart Lane’s predecessors when they launched Seattle cocktail bar Artusi 10 years ago.

Using induction meant they could squeeze more tables into the tight space available next door to Cascina Spinasse — their popular Italian restaurant in Seattle’s vibrant Capitol Hill neighborhood — and lowered the cost of expanding.

Rather than igniting a fossil fuel to roast the surface of pots and pans, induction burners generate a magnetic field that heats metal cookware from inside. For people at home, forgoing gas eliminates combustion by-products, which means fewer asthma attacks and other health impacts.

For Artusi, it eliminated the need for a pricey hood and fans to continuously pump fumes and heat out and pull fresh air in. That made induction the cheaper way to go, even though induction cooktops cost more than conventional gas ranges.

Over the years, they’ve expanded the menu because even guests who come for the signature Amari cocktails often stay for the handmade pasta, meatballs and seasonal sauces. So the initial pair of induction burners has multiplied to nine. Yet Artusi retains a cleaner, quieter and more intimate atmosphere. Yet thanks largely to the smaller fans, “it’s not as chaotic,” said Lane.

And Lane adds, it feels good to be cooking on electricity — which in Seattle proper is about 90 per cent renewable — rather than on a fossil fuel that produces climate-warming greenhouse gases. “You feel like you’re doing something right,” he said.

Lane says he wouldn’t be surprised if induction is the new normal for chefs entering the trade 10 years from now. “They probably would cook with gas and say, ‘Damn it’s hot in here!’” — Peter Fairley

This story is supported in part by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

increasing energy efficiency to trim the amount of power we need,

boosting renewable energy to make it possible to turn off climate-wrecking fossil-fuel plants, and

plugging as much stuff as possible into the electrical grid.
Recent studies in B.C. and Washington state, and underway for Oregon, point to efficiency and electrification as the most cost-effective route to slashing emissions while maintaining lifestyles and maximizing jobs. A recent National Academies of Science study reached the same conclusion, calling electrification the core strategy for an equitable and economically advantageous energy transition, while abroad New Zealand's electrification push is asking whether electricity can replace fossil fuels in time.

However, technologies don’t emerge in a vacuum. The social and economic adjustments required by the wholesale shift from fossil fuels that belch climate-warming carbon emissions to renewable power can still make or break decarbonization, according to Jim Williams, a University of San Francisco energy expert whose simulation software tools have guided many national and regional energy plans, including two new U.S.-wide studies, a December 2020 analysis for Washington state and another in process for Oregon.

Williams points to vital actions that are liable to rile up those who lose money in the deal. Steps like letting trees grow many decades older before they are cut down, so they can suck up more carbon dioxide — which means forgoing quicker profits from selling timber. Or convincing rural communities and conservationists that they should accept power-transmission lines crossing farms and forests.

“It’s those kinds of policy questions and social acceptance questions that are the big challenges,” said Williams.

Washington, Oregon and B.C. already mandate growing supplies of renewable power and help cover the added cost of some electric equipment, and across the border efforts at cleaning up Canada's electricity are critical to meeting climate pledges. These include battery-powered cars, SUVs and pickups on the road. Heat pumps — air conditioners that run in reverse to push heat into a building — can replace furnaces. And, at industrial sites, electric machines can take the place of older mechanical systems, cutting costs and boosting reliability.

As these options drop in price they are weakening reliance on fossil fuels — even among professional chefs who’ve long sworn by cooking with gas (see sidebar: Cooking quick, clean and carbon-free).

“For each of the things that we enjoy and we need, there’s a pathway to do that without producing any greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jotham Peters, managing partner for Vancouver-based energy analysis firm Navius Research, whose clients include the B.C. government.

What the modelling tells us

Key to decarbonization planning for Cascadia are computer simulations of future conditions known as models. These projections take electrification and other options and run with them. Researchers run dozens of simulated potential future energy scenarios for a given region, tinkering with different variables: How much will energy demand grow? What happens if we can get 80 per cent of people into electric cars? What if it’s only 50 per cent? And so on.

Accelerating the transition requires large investments, this modelling shows. Plugging in millions of vehicles and heat pumps demands both brawnier and more flexible power systems, including more power lines and other infrastructure such as bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that communities often oppose. That demands both stronger policies and public acceptance. It means training and apprenticeships for the trades that must retrofit homes, and ensuring that all communities benefit — especially those disproportionately suffering from energy-related pollution in the fossil fuel era.

Consensus is imperative, but the new studies are bound to spark controversy. Because, while affordable, decarbonization is not free.

The Meikle Wind Project in BC’s Peace River region, the province’s largest, with 61 turbines producing 184.6 MW of electricity, went online in 2017. Photo: Pattern Development.
Projections for British Columbia and Washington suggest that decarbonizing Cascadia will spur extra job-stimulating growth. But the benefits and relatively low net cost mask a large swing in spending that will create winners and losers, and without policies to protect disadvantaged communities from potential energy cost increases, could leave some behind.

By 2030, the path to decarbonization shows Washingtonians buying about $5 billion less worth of natural gas, coal and petroleum products, while putting even more dollars toward cleaner vehicles and homes. No surprise then that oil and gas interests are attacking the new research.

And the research shows a likely economic speed bump around 2030. Economic growth would slow due to increased energy costs as economies race to make a sharp turn toward pollution reductions after nearly a decade of rising greenhouse gas emissions.

“Meeting that 2030 target is tough and I think it took everybody a little bit by surprise,” said Nancy Hirsh, executive director of the Seattle-based NW Energy Coalition, and co-chair of a state panel that shaped Washington’s recent energy supply planning.

But that’s not cause to ease up. Wait longer, says Hirsh, and the price will only rise.

Charging up

What most drives Cascadia’s energy models toward electrification is the dropping cost of renewable electricity.

Take solar energy. In 2010, no large power system in the world got more than three per cent of its electricity from solar. But over the past decade, solar energy’s cost fell more than 80 per cent, and by last year it was delivering over nine per cent of Germany’s electricity and over 19 per cent of California’s.

Government mandates and incentives helped get the trend started, and Canada's electricity progress underscores how costs continue to fall. Once prohibitively expensive, solar’s price now beats nuclear, coal and gas-fired power, and it’s expected to keep getting cheaper. The same goes for wind power, whose jumbo jet-sized composite blades bear no resemblance to the rickety machines once mocked by Big Oil.

In contrast, cleaning up gas- or coal-fired power plants by equipping them to capture their carbon pollution remains expensive even after decades of research and development and government incentives. Cost overruns and mechanical failures recently shuttered the world’s largest “low-carbon” coal-fired power plant in Texas after less than four years of operation.

Retrofits enabled this coal-fired plant in Texas to capture some of its carbon dioxide pollution, which was then injected into aging oil wells to revive production. But problems made the plant’s coal-fired power — which is being priced out by renewable energy — even less competitive and it was shut down after three years in 2020. Photo by NRG Energy.
Innovation and incentives are also making equipment that plugs into the grid cheaper. Electric options are good and getting better with a push from governments and a self-reinforcing cycle of performance improvement, mass production and increased demand.

Battery advances and cost cuts over the past decade have made owning an electric car cheaper, fuel included, than conventional cars. Electric heat pumps may be the next electric wave. They’re three to four times more efficient than electric baseboard heaters, save money over natural gas in most new homes, and work in Cascadia’s coldest zones.

Merran Smith, executive director of the Vancouver-based non-profit Clean Energy Canada, says that — as with electric cars five years ago — people don’t realize how much heat pumps have improved. “Heat pumps used to be big huge noisy things,” said Smith. “Now they’re a fraction of the size, they’re quiet and efficient.”

Electrifying certain industrial processes can also cut greenhouse gases at low cost. Surprisingly, even oil and gas drilling rigs and pipeline compressors can be converted to electric. Provincial utility BC Hydro is building new transmission lines to meet anticipated power demand from electrification of the fracking fields in northeastern British Columbia that supply much of Cascadia’s natural gas.

Simulating low-carbon living

The computer simulation tools guiding energy and climate strategies, unlike previous models that looked at individual sectors, take an economy-wide view. Planners can repeatedly run scenarios through sophisticated software, tinkering with their assumptions each time to answer cross-cutting questions such as: Should the limited supply of waste wood from forestry that can be sustainably removed from forests be burned in power plants? Or is it more valuable converted to biofuel for airplanes that can’t plug into the grid?

Evolved Energy Research, a San Francisco-based firm, analyzed the situation in Washington. Its algorithms are tuned using data about energy production and use today — down to the number and types of furnaces, stovetops or vehicles. It has expert assessments of future costs for equipment and fuels. And it knows the state’s mandated emissions targets.

Researchers run the model myriad times, simulating decisions about equipment and fuel purchases — such as whether restaurants stick with gas or switch to electric induction “burners” as their gas stoves wear out. The model finds the most cost-effective choices by homes and businesses that meet the state’s climate goals.

For Seattle wine bar Artusi, going with electric induction cooktops meant they could squeeze more tables into a tight, comfortable space. Standard burners cost less but would have required noisy, pricey fume hoods and fans to suck out the pollutants. For more, see sidebar. Photo: InvestigateWest.
Rather than accepting that optimal scenario and calling it a day, modellers account for uncertainty in their estimates of future costs by throwing in various additional constraints and rerunning the model.

That probing shows that longer reliance on climate-warming natural gas and petroleum fuels increases costs. In fact, all of the climate-protecting scenarios achieve Washington’s goals at relatively low cost, compared to the state’s historic spending on energy.

The end result of these scenarios are net-zero carbon emissions in 2050, echoing Canada's race to net-zero and the growing role of renewable energy, in which a small amount of emissions remaining are offset by rebounding forests or equipment that scrubs CO2 from the air.

But the seeds of that transformation must be sown by 2030. The scenarios identify common strategies that the state can pursue with low risk of future regrets.

One no brainer is to rapidly add wind and solar power to wring out CO2 emissions from Washington’s power sector. The projections end coal-fired power by 2025, as required by law, but also show that, with grid upgrades, gas-fired power plants that produce greenhouse gas emissions can stay turned off most of the time. That delivers about 16.2 million of the 44.8 million metric tons of CO2 emissions cut required by 2030 under state law.

All of the Washington scenarios also jack up electricity consumption to power cars and heating. By 2050, Washington homes and businesses would draw more than twice as much power from the grid as they did last year, meaning climate-friendly electricity is displacing climate-unfriendly gasoline, diesel fuel and natural gas. In the optimal case, electricity meets 98 per cent of transport energy in 2050, and over 80 per cent of building energy use.

By 2050, the high-electrification scenarios would create over 60,000 extra jobs across the state, as replacing old and inefficient equipment and construction of renewable power plants stimulates economic growth, according to projections from Washington, D.C.-based FTI Consulting. Scenarios with less electrification require more low-carbon fuels that cut emissions at higher cost, and thus create 15,000 to 35,000 fewer jobs.

Much of the new employment comes in middle-class positions — including about half of the total in construction — leading to big boosts in employment income. Washingtonians earn over $7 billion more in 2050 under the high-electrification scenarios, compared to a little over $5 billion if buildings stick with gas heating through 2050 and less than $2 billion with extra transportation fuels.

Rocketing to 2030

Evolved Energy’s electrification-heavy decarbonization pathways for Washington dovetail with a growing body of international research, such as that National Academy of Sciences report and a major U.S. decarbonization study led by Princeton University, and in Canada debates like Elizabeth May's 2030 renewable grid goal are testing feasibility. (See Grist’s 100 per cent Clean Energy video for a popularized view of similar pathways to slash U.S. carbon emissions, informed by Princeton modeller Jesse Jenkins.)

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Texas Electricity Market Bailout proposes securitization bonds and ERCOT-backed fees after Winter Storm Uri, spreading costs via ratepayer charges on power bills to stabilize generators, co-ops, and retailers and avert bankruptcies and investor flight.

Key Points

State plan to securitize storm debts via ERCOT fees, adding bill charges to stabilize Texas power firms.

✅ Securitization bonds finance unpaid ancillary services and energy costs

✅ ERCOT fee spreads Winter Storm Uri debts across ratepayers statewide

✅ Aims to prevent bankruptcies, preserve grid reliability, reassure investors

An approximately $2.5 billion plan to bail out Texas’ distressed electricity market from the financial crisis caused by Winter Storm Uri in February has been approved by the Texas House.

The legislation would impose a fee — likely for the next decade or longer — on electricity companies, which would then get passed on to residential and business customers in their power bills, even as some utilities waived certain fees earlier in the crisis.

House lawmakers sent House Bill 4492 to the Senate on Thursday after a 129-15 vote. A similar bill is advancing in the Senate.

Some of the state’s electricity providers and generators are financially underwater in the aftermath of the February power outages, which left millions without power and killed more than 100 people. Electricity companies had to buy whatever power was available at the maximum rate allowed by Texas regulations — $9,000 per megawatt hour — during the week of the storm (the average price for power in 2020 was $22 per megawatt hour). Natural gas fuel prices also spiked more than 700% during the storm.

Several companies are nearing default on their bills to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the Texas power grid that covers most of the state and facilitates financial transactions in it.

Rural electric cooperatives were especially hard hit; Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, which supplies electricity to 1.5 million customers, filed for bankruptcy citing a $1.8 billion debt to ERCOT.

State Rep. Chris Paddie, R-Marshall, the bill’s author, said a second bailout bill will be necessary during the current legislative session for severely distressed electric cooperatives.

“This is a financial crisis, and it’s a big one,” James Schaefer, a senior managing director at Guggenheim Partners, an investment bank, told lawmakers at a House State Affairs Committee hearing in early April. He warned that more bankruptcies would cause higher costs to customers and hurt the state’s image in the eyes of investors.

“You’ve got to free the system,” Schaefer said. “It’s horrible that a bunch of folks have to pay, but it’s a system-wide failure. If you let a bunch of folks crash, it’s not a good look for your state.”

If approved by the Senate and Gov. Greg Abbott, a newly-created Texas Electric Securitization Corp. would use the money raised from the fees for bonds to help pay the companies’ debts, including costs for ancillary services, a financial product that helps ensure power is continuously generated and improve electricity reliability across the grid.

Paddie told his colleagues Wednesday that he could not yet estimate how long the new fee would be imposed, but during committee hearings lawmakers estimated it’s likely to be at least a decade. Several other bills to spread out the costs of the winter storm and consider market reforms are also moving through the Legislature.

ERCOT’s independent market monitor recommended in March that energy sold during that period be repriced at a lower rate, which would have allowed ERCOT to claw back about $4.2 billion in payments to power generators, but the Public Utility Commission declined to do so, even as a court ruling on plant obligations in emergencies drew scrutiny among market participants.

Instead, lawmakers are pushing for bailouts that several energy experts have said is needed, both to ensure distressed companies don’t pass enormous costs on to their customers and to prevent electricity investors and companies from leaving the state if it’s viewed as too risky to continue doing business.

Becky Klein, an energy consultant in Austin and former chair of the Public Utility Commission who played a key role in de-regulating Texas’ electricity market two decades ago, said during a retail electricity panel hosted by Integrate that legislation is necessary to provide “some kind of backstop during a crazy market crisis like this to show the financial market that we’re willing to provide some relief.”

Still, some lawmakers are concerned with how they will win public support, including potential voter-approved funding measures, for bills to bail out the state’s electricity market.

“I have to go back to Laredo and say, ‘I know you didn’t have electricity for several days, but now I’m going to make you pay a little more for the next 20 years,’” state Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, D-Laredo, said during an early April discussion on the plan in the House State Affairs Committee. He said he voted for the bill because it’s in the best interest of the state.

Paddie, during the same committee hearing, acknowledged that “none of us want to increase fees or taxes.” However, he said, “We have to deal with the reality set before us.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Vehicle Price Parity 2027 signals cheaper EV manufacturing as battery costs plunge, widening model lineups, and tighter EU emissions rules; UBS and BloombergNEF foresee parity, with TCO advantages over ICE amid growing fast-charging networks.

Key Points

EV cost parity in 2027 when manufacturing undercuts ICE, led by cheaper batteries, wider lineups, and emissions policy.

✅ Battery costs drop 58% next decade, after 88% fall

✅ Manufacturing parity across segments from 2027

✅ TCO favors EVs; charging networks expand globally

A Bloomberg/NEF report commissioned by Transport & Environment forecasts 2027 as the year when electric vehicles will start to become cheaper to manufacture than their internal combustion equivalents across all segments, aligning with analyses that the EV age is arriving ahead of schedule for consumers and manufacturers alike, mainly due to a sharp drop in battery prices and the appearance of new models by more manufacturers.

Batteries, which have fallen in price by 88% over the past decade and are expected to plunge by a further 58% over the next 10 years, make up between one-quarter and two-fifths of the total price of a vehicle. The average pre-tax price of a mid-range electric vehicle is around €33,300, and higher upfront prices concern many UK buyers compared to €18,600 for its diesel or gasoline equivalent. In 2026, both are expected to cost around €19,000, while in 2030, the same electric car will cost €16,300 before tax, while its internal combustion equivalent will cost €19,900, and that’s without factoring in government incentives.

Other reports, such as a recent one by UBS, put the date of parity a few years earlier, by 2024, after which they say there will be little reason left to buy a non-electric vehicle, as the market has expanded from near zero to 2 million in just five years.

In Europe, carmakers will become a particular stakeholder in this transition due to heavy fines for exceeding emissions limits calculated on the basis of the total number of vehicles sold. Increasing the percentage of electric vehicles in the annual sales portfolio is seen by the industry as the only way to avoid these fines. In addition to brands such as Bentley or Jaguar Land Rover, which have announced the total abandonment of internal combustion engine technology by 2025, or Volvo, which has set 2030 as the target date, other companies such as Ford, which is postponing this date in its home market, also set 2030 for the European market, which clearly demonstrates the suitability of this type of policy.

Nevertheless internal combustion vehicles will continue to travel on the roads or will be resold in developing countries. In addition to the price factor, which is even more accentuated when estimates are carried out in terms of total cost of ownership calculations due to the lower cost of electric recharging versus fuel and lower maintenance requirements, other factors such as the availability of fast charging networks must be taken into account.

While price parity is approaching, it is worth thinking about the factors that are causing car sales, which are still behind gasoline models in share, to suffer: the chip crisis, which is strongly affecting the automotive industry and will most likely extend until 2022, is creating production problems and the elimination of numerous advanced electronic options in many models, which reduces the incentive to purchase a vehicle at the present time. These types of reasons could lead some consumers to postpone purchasing a vehicle precisely when we may be talking about the final years for internal combustion technology, which would increase the likelihood that, later on and as the price gap closes, they would opt for an electric vehicle.

Finally, in the United States, the ambitious infrastructure plan put in place by the Biden administration also promises to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles by addressing key barriers to mainstream adoption such as charging access, which in turn is fueling the interest of automotive companies to have more electric vehicles in their range. In Europe, meanwhile, more Chinese brands offering electric vehicles are beginning to enter the most advanced markets, such as Norway and the Netherlands, with plans to expand to the rest of the continent with very competitive offers in terms of price.

One way or another, the future of the automotive industry is electric, and the transition will take place during the remainder of this decade. You might want to think about it if you are weighing whether it’s time to buy an electric car this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

B.C. electric school buses launch on Vancouver Island, showcasing zero-emission transport, regenerative braking, lower maintenance costs, and charging infrastructure, funded by the Ministry of Education to reduce carbon footprint and enhance environmental learning.

Key Points

B.C. electric school buses are zero-emission student transport with lower fuel and maintenance costs.

✅ Province funded 18 e-buses; SD62 deployed two on Vancouver Island.

✅ About $50 electricity per 550 km vs $175 diesel for fuel.

✅ 220 km range; regenerative braking; up to 40% lower maintenance.

Two of B.C.'s first electric school buses hit the road this week in the Sooke school district on Vancouver Island, as Metro Vancouver e-bus rollout continues across the region. 

School District 62 is one of 13 districts that have acquired electric buses with the help of B.C.'s Ministry of Education, which provided $13 million for 18 buses throughout the province, as electric ferries in B.C. expand the zero-emission transition across transportation.

The ministry estimates the 18 buses can provide service for about 1,300 students a day.

Each electric bus costs about $350,000, compared to an average of about $150,000 per diesel-powered school bus. 

Tracey Syrota, transportation manager with the Sooke school district, said they received about $118,000 in funding from the Ministry of Education, along with a carbon-neutral grant of $65,000. They also got $180,000, the regular funding to replace a diesel bus, which they put toward the new buses and their charging units.

"This is an incredible milestone in our effort to foster innovation and sustainability in the work we do in the Sooke school district," Ravi Parmar, district board chair, said in a media release.

"We are incredibly thankful for the funding for this e-bus as well as to be able to provide students with transportation that aligns with our goals of reducing our carbon footprint and enhancing environmental learning opportunities."

Based on calculations from U.S. data from 2018, Syrota expects to see a 40 per cent decrease in maintenance costs, and TTC e-bus lessons suggest similar efficiencies in large fleets as well. As for fuel, the savings will be considerable; Syrota said a diesel bus costs about $175 to fill for a 550-kilometre trip, whereas charging the electric bus costs about $50 in electricity. 

The plan is to plug the buses in overnight, and midday if needed, as jurisdictions like California's school bus policy accelerate charging standards and infrastructure. 

But the buses are also equipped with regenerative braking. 

"They have a 220 kilometre range that they can go," Syrota told All Points West host Kathryn Marlow.

"But the nice thing about that is with regenerative braking, potentially, they may be able to go farther than the 220 kilometres, depending on how well you utilize the accelerator pedal, because that when you lift your foot slightly off the accelerator pedal, the regenerative braking kicks in."

Drivers, including Al Kowalko, have had special training to understand all the electrical components of their new vehicles, as cities like St. Albert's e-bus program build similar operator expertise. 

"Our instrumentation is a lot different," Kowalko said.

"Looks like something out of Star Wars."

Cost savings are only part of the benefit, Syrota said. Reducing carbon emissions is part of the district's strategic plan, and BC Ferries hybrid ships reflect this broader shift in provincial transportation.

"I think we're going to see huge benefits overall for the efficiencies of them, the cost reduction and just the overall health and benefit of the environment," Syrota said. 

The two new buses in Sooke are part of a 45-bus fleet, which Syrota hopes will become entirely electric over time, as initiatives like large-scale school bus conversions accelerate the market.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EV Battery Manufacturing Emissions debunk viral claims with lifecycle analysis, showing lithium-ion production CO2 depends on grid mix and is offset by zero tailpipe emissions and renewable-energy charging over typical vehicle miles.

Key Points

EV lithium-ion pack production varies by grid mix; ~1-2 years of driving, then offset by zero tailpipe emissions.

✅ Battery CO2 depends on electricity mix and factory efficiency.

✅ 75 kWh pack ~4.5-7.5 t CO2; not equal to 8 years of driving.

✅ Lifecycle analysis: EVs cut GHG vs gas, especially with renewables.

Electric vehicles are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline powered cars, but one Facebook post claims that the benefits are overblown, despite fact-checks of charging math to the contrary, and the vehicles are much more harmful to the planet than people assume.

A cartoon posted to Facebook on April 29, amid signs the EV era is arriving in many markets, shows a car in one panel with "diesel" written on the side and the driver thinking "I feel so dirty." In another panel, a car has "electric" written on its side with the driver thinking "I feel so clean."

However, the electric vehicle is shown connected to what appears to be a factory that’s blowing dark smoke into the air.

Below the cartoon is a caption that claims "manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of CO2 as running a petrol car for eight years."

This isn’t a new line of criticism against electric vehicles, and reflects ongoing opinion on the EV revolution in the media. Similar Facebook posts have taken aim at the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing of electric cars — specifically the batteries — to make the case that zero emissions vehicles aren’t necessarily clean.

Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops.

Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine.

How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made — or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated, and national electricity profiles such as Canada's 2019 mix help illustrate regional differences — according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank.

Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said.

If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years — but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its "higher carbon electricity mix." The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla’s Nevada factory uses some solar energy. 

"More than half the emissions associated with manufacturing the battery are associated with electricity use," Hausfather said in an email to PolitiFact. "So, as the electricity grid decarbonizes, emissions associated with battery production will decline. The same is not true for sedan tailpipe emissions."

The Facebook post does not mention the electricity needs and CO2 impact of factories that build gasoline or diesel cars and their components. 

Another thing the Facebook post omits is that the CO2 emitted in the production of the battery can be offset over a short time in an electric car by the lack of tailpipe emissions when it’s in operation. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists found in a 2015 report that taking into account electricity sources for charging, which have become greener in all states since then, an electric vehicle ends up reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared with a similar size gas-powered car.

A midsize vehicle completely negates the carbon dioxide its production emits by the time it travels 4,900 miles, according to the report. For full size cars, it takes 19,000 miles of driving.

The U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy also looked at the life cycle of electric vehicles — which includes a car’s production, use and disposal — and concluded they produce less greenhouse gases and smog than gasoline-powered vehicles, a conclusion consistent with independent analyses from consumer and energy groups.

The agency also found drivers could further lower CO2 emissions by charging with power generated by a renewable energy source, and drivers can also save money in the long run with EV ownership. 

Our ruling
A cartoon shared on Facebook claims the carbon dioxide emitted from the production of one electric car battery is the equivalent to driving a gas-powered vehicle for eight years.

The production of lithium-ion batteries for electric cars emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide, but nowhere near the level claimed in the cartoon. The emissions from battery production are equivalent to driving a gasoline car for one or two years, depending on where it’s produced, and those emissions are effectively offset over time by the lack of tailpipe emissions when the car is on the road. 

We rate this claim Mostly False.    

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Teachers' Evoltz Acquisition expands electricity transmission in Brazil, adding seven grid lines across ten states, aligning infrastructure strategy with inflation-linked cash flows, renewable energy integration, Latin America and net-zero objectives pending regulatory approvals.

Key Points

A 100% purchase of Brazil's Evoltz, adding seven grid lines and delivering stable, inflation-linked cash flows.

✅ 100% stake in Evoltz with seven transmission lines

✅ Aligns with net-zero and renewable energy strategy

✅ Inflation-linked, core infrastructure cash flows in Brazil

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan has acquired Evoltz Participações, an electricity transmission firm in Brazil, from US asset manager TPG. 

The retirement system took a 100% stake in the energy firm, Ontario Teachers’ said Monday. The acquisition has netted the pension fund seven electricity transmission lines that service consumers and businesses across 10 states in Brazil, amid dynamics similar to electricity rate reductions for businesses seen in Ontario. The firm was founded by TPG just three years ago. 

“Our strategy focuses on allocating significant capital to high-quality core infrastructure assets with lower risks and stable inflation-linked cash flows,” Dale Burgess, senior managing director of infrastructure and natural resources at Ontario Teachers, said in a statement. “Electricity transmission businesses are particularly attractive given their importance in facilitating a transition to a low-carbon economy.” 

The pension fund has invested in other electricity distribution companies recently. In March, Ontario Teachers’ took a 40% stake in Finland’s Caruna, and agreed to acquire a 25% stake in SSEN Transmission in the UK grid. For more than a decade, it has maintained a 50% stake in Chile-based transmission firm Saesa. 

The investment into Evoltz demonstrates Ontario Teachers’ growing portfolio in Brazil and Latin America, while activity in Ontario such as the Peterborough Distribution sale reflects ongoing utility consolidation. In 2016, the firm, with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), invested in toll roads in Mexico. They took a 49% stake with Latin American infrastructure group IDEAL. 

Evoltz, which delivers renewable energy, will also help decarbonize the pension fund’s portfolio. In January, the fund pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Last year, Ontario Teachers’ issued its first green bond offering. The $890 million 10-year bond will help the retirement system fund sustainable investments aligned with policy measures like Ontario's subsidized hydro plan during COVID-19. 

However, Ontario Teachers’ has also received criticism for its investment into parts of Abu Dhabi’s gas pipeline network, and investor concerns about Hydro One highlight sector uncertainties. Last summer, it joined other institutional investors in investing $10.1 billion for a 49% stake. 

As of December, Ontario Teachers’ reached a portfolio with C$221.2 billion (US$182.5 billion) in assets. Since 1990, the fund has maintained a 9.6% annualized return. Last year, it missed its benchmark with an 8.6% return, with examples such as Hydro One shares fall after shake-up underscoring market volatility.

The pension fund expects the deal will close later this fall, pending closing conditions and regulatory approvals, including decisions such as the OEB combined T&D rates ruling that shape utility economics. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Clean Electricity Standard drives Biden's infrastructure, grid decarbonization, and utility mandates, leveraging EPA regulation, renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture via reconciliation to reach 80% clean power by 2030 amid partisan Congress.

Key Points

A federal mandate to reach 80% clean U.S. power by 2030 using incentives and EPA rules to speed grid decarbonization.

✅ Targets 80% clean electricity by 2030 via Congress or reconciliation

✅ Mix of renewables, nuclear, gas with carbon capture allowed

✅ Backup levers: EPA rules, incentives, utility planning shifts

The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.

The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.

If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.

“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and passing the right spending package.”

In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities, including plans to revitalize coal communities across the country, most affected by climate change.

But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—even as early assessments show mixed results from climate law—and unlikely to last beyond his administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.

It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms, the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.

But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B, observers said.

Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months, including upgrades to an aging power grid that affect renewables and EVs, as the infrastructure bill proceeds through Congress.

Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them, and even high energy prices have not necessarily triggered a green transition in the marketplace.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.

A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.

Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.

To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then, the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process that can carry a clean electricity standard. Some Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that make up more than half of the bill.

The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the next decade.

“The next best approach is to either, or in combination, pursue EPA regulation of power plant pollution from existing and new power plants as well as to take a reconciliation-based approach to a clean electricity standard where you’re basically spending federal dollars to provide incentives to drive clean electricity deployment as opposed to a mandate per se,” he said.

Either way, O’Boyle said the introduction of the clean electricity standard sets a new bar for the federal government that likely would drive industry response even if it doesn’t get enacted. He compared it to the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s initiative to limit power plant emissions. Even though the plan never came to fruition, because of a Clean Power Plan rollback, it left a legacy that continues years later and wasn’t negated by a president who prioritized fossil fuels over the climate, he said.

“It never got enacted, but it still created a titanic shift in the way utilities plan their systems and proactively reposition themselves for future carbon regulation of their electricity systems,” O’Boyle said. “I think any action by the Biden administration or by Congress through reconciliation would have a similar catalytic function over the next couple years.”

Some don’t think a clean electricity standard has a doomed future. Right now, its provisions are vague. But they can be filled in in a way that doesn’t alienate Republicans or states more hesitant toward climate policy, said Sally Benson, an engineering professor at Stanford University and an expert on low-carbon energy systems. The United States is overdue for a federal mandate that lasts through multiple administrations. The only way to ensure that happens is to get Republican support.

She said that might be possible by making the clean electricity standard more flexible. Mandate the goals, she said, not how states get there. Going 100% renewable is not going to sell in some states or with some lawmakers, she added. For some regions, flexibility will mean keeping nuclear plants open. For others, it would mean using natural gas with carbon capture, Benson said.

While it might not meet the standards some progressives seek to end all fossil fuel usage, it would have a better chance of getting enacted and remaining in place through multiple presidents, she said. In fact, a clean electricity standard would provide a chance for carbon capture, which has been at the center of Republican climate policy proposals. Benson said carbon capture is not economical now, but the mandate of a standard could encourage investments that would drive the sector forward more rapidly.

“If it’s a plan that people see as shutting the door to nuclear or to natural gas plus carbon capture, I think we will face a lot of pushback,” she said. “Make it an inclusive plan with a specific goal of getting to zero emissions and there’s not one way to do it, meaning all renewables—I think that’s the thing that could garner a lot of industrial support to make progress.”

In addition to industry, Biden’s proposed clean electricity standard would drive states to do more, said Larsen of the Rhodium Group. Several states already have their own version of a clean energy standard and have driven much of the national progress on carbon emissions reduction in the last four years, he said. Biden has set a new benchmark that some states, including those with some of the biggest economies in the United States, would now likely exceed, he said.

“It is rare for the federal government to get out in front of leading states in clean energy policy,” he said. “This is not usually how climate policy diffusion works from the state level to the federal level; usually it’s states go ahead and the federal government adopts something that’s less ambitious.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News