Enbridge opens wind farm in Kincardine

Near-Field Thermophotovoltaics captures radiated energy across a nanoscale gap, using thin-film photovoltaic cells and indium gallium arsenide to boost power density and efficiency, enabling compact Army portable power from emitters via radiative heat transfer.

Key Points

A nanoscale TPV method capturing near-field photons for higher power density at lower emitter temperatures.

✅ Nanoscale gap boosts radiative transfer and usable photon flux

✅ Thin-film InGaAs cells recycle sub-band-gap photons via reflector

✅ Achieved ~5 kW/m2 power density with higher efficiency

With the addition of sensors and enhanced communication tools, providing lightweight, portable power has become even more challenging, with concepts such as power from falling snow illustrating how diverse new energy-harvesting approaches are. Army-funded research demonstrated a new approach to turning thermal energy into electricity that could provide compact and efficient power for Soldiers on future battlefields.

Hot objects radiate light in the form of photons into their surroundings. The emitted photons can be captured by a photovoltaic cell and converted to useful electric energy. This approach to energy conversion is called far-field thermophotovoltaics, or FF-TPVs, and has been under development for many years; however, it suffers from low power density and therefore requires high operating temperatures of the emitter.

The research, conducted at the University of Michigan and published in Nature Communications, demonstrates a new approach, where the separation between the emitter and the photovoltaic cell is reduced to the nanoscale, enabling much greater power output than what is possible with FF-TPVs for the same emitter temperature.

This approach, which enables capture of energy that is otherwise trapped in the near-field of the emitter is called near-field thermophotovoltaics or NF-TPV and uses custom-built photovoltaic cells and emitter designs ideal for near-field operating conditions, alongside emerging smart solar inverters that help manage conversion and delivery.

This technique exhibited a power density almost an order of magnitude higher than that for the best-reported near-field-TPV systems, while also operating at six-times higher efficiency, paving the way for future near-field-TPV applications, including remote microgrid deployments in extreme environments, according to Dr. Edgar Meyhofer, professor of mechanical engineering, University of Michigan.

"The Army uses large amounts of power during deployments and battlefield operations and must be carried by the Soldier or a weight constrained system," said Dr. Mike Waits, U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command's Army Research Laboratory. "If successful, in the future near-field-TPVs could serve as more compact and higher efficiency power sources for Soldiers as these devices can function at lower operating temperatures than conventional TPVs."

The efficiency of a TPV device is characterized by how much of the total energy transfer between the emitter and the photovoltaic cell is used to excite the electron-hole pairs in the photovoltaic cell, where insights from near-light-speed conduction research help contextualize performance limits in semiconductors. While increasing the temperature of the emitter increases the number of photons above the band-gap of the cell, the number of sub band-gap photons that can heat up the photovoltaic cell need to be minimized.

"This was achieved by fabricating thin-film TPV cells with ultra-flat surfaces, and with a metal back reflector," said Dr. Stephen Forrest, professor of electrical and computer engineering, University of Michigan. "The photons above the band-gap of the cell are efficiently absorbed in the micron-thick semiconductor, while those below the band-gap are reflected back to the silicon emitter and recycled."

The team grew thin-film indium gallium arsenide photovoltaic cells on thick semiconductor substrates, and then peeled off the very thin semiconductor active region of the cell and transferred it to a silicon substrate, informing potential interfaces with home battery systems for distributed use.

All these innovations in device design and experimental approach resulted in a novel near-field TPV system that could complement distributed resources in virtual power plants for resilient operations.

"The team has achieved a record ~5 kW/m2 power output, which is an order of magnitude larger than systems previously reported in the literature," said Dr. Pramod Reddy, professor of mechanical engineering, University of Michigan.

Researchers also performed state-of-the-art theoretical calculations to estimate the performance of the photovoltaic cell at each temperature and gap size, informing hybrid designs with backup fuel cell solutions that extend battery life, and showed good agreement between the experiments and computational predictions.

"This current demonstration meets theoretical predictions of radiative heat transfer at the nanoscale, and directly shows the potential for developing future near-field TPV devices for Army applications in power and energy, communication and sensors," said Dr. Pani Varanasi, program manager, DEVCOM ARL that funded this work.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Pacific Northwest Transmission Bottleneck slows clean energy progress as BPA's aging grid constrains renewable interconnections, delaying wind, solar, and data center growth; decarbonization targets depend on transmission upgrades, new substations, and policy reform.

Key Points

An interconnection and capacity shortfall on BPA's aging grid that delays renewables and impedes clean energy goals.

✅ BPA approvals lag: 1 of 469 projects since 2015.

✅ Yakama solar waits for substation upgrades until 2027.

✅ Data centers and decarbonization targets face grid constraints.

Oregon and Washington have set ambitious targets to decarbonize their power sectors, aiming for 100% clean electricity in the coming decades. However, a significant obstacle stands in the way: the region's aging and overburdened transmission grid, underscoring why 100% renewables remain elusive even as momentum builds.

The Grid Bottleneck

The BPA operates a transmission system that is nearly a century old in some areas, and its capacity has not expanded sufficiently to accommodate the influx of renewable energy projects, reflecting stalled grid spending in many parts of the U.S., according to recent analyses. Since 2015, 469 large renewable projects have applied to connect to the BPA's grid; however, only one has been approved—a stark contrast to other regions in the country. This bottleneck has left numerous wind and solar projects in limbo, unable to deliver power to the grid.

One notable example is the Yakama Nation's solar project. Despite receiving a $32 million federal grant under the bipartisan infrastructure law as part of a broader grid overhaul for renewables, the tribe faces significant delays. The BPA estimates that it will take until 2027 to complete the necessary upgrades to the transmission system, including a new substation, before the solar array can be connected. This timeline poses a risk of losing federal funding if the project isn't operational by 2031.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The slow pace of grid expansion has broader implications for the region's economy and environmental goals. Data centers and other energy-intensive industries are increasingly drawn to the Pacific Northwest due to its clean energy potential, while interregional projects like the Wyoming-to-California wind link illustrate how transmission access can unlock supply. However, without adequate infrastructure, these industries may seek alternatives elsewhere. Additionally, the inability to integrate renewable energy efficiently hampers efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

Policy Challenges and Legislative Efforts

Efforts to address the grid limitations through state-level initiatives have faced challenges, even as a federal rule to boost transmission advances nationally. In 2025, both Oregon and Washington considered legislation to establish state bonding authorities aimed at financing transmission upgrades. However, these bills failed to pass, leaving the BPA as the primary entity responsible for grid expansion. The BPA's unique structure—operating as a self-funded federal agency without direct state oversight—has made it difficult for regional leaders to influence its decision-making processes.

Looking Ahead

The Pacific Northwest's renewable energy aspirations hinge on modernizing its transmission infrastructure, aligning with decarbonization strategies that emphasize grid buildout. While the BPA has proposed several projects to enhance grid capacity, the timeline for completion remains uncertain. Without significant investment and policy reforms, the region risks falling behind in the transition to a clean energy future. Stakeholders across Oregon and Washington must collaborate to advocate for necessary changes and ensure that the grid can support the growing demand for renewable energy.

The Pacific Northwest's commitment to clean energy is commendable, but achieving these goals requires overcoming substantial infrastructure challenges, and neighboring jurisdictions such as British Columbia have pursued B.C. regulatory streamlining to accelerate projects. Addressing the limitations of the BPA's transmission system is critical to unlocking the full potential of renewable energy in the region. Only through concerted efforts at the federal, state, and local levels can Oregon and Washington hope to realize their green energy ambitions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Quebec Churchill Falls power deal renewal spotlights Hydro-Que9bec's Labrador hydroelectricity, Churchill River contract extension, Gull Island prospects, and Innu Nation rights, as demand from EV battery manufacturing and the green economy outpaces provincial supply.

Key Points

Extending Quebec's low-price Churchill Falls contract to secure Labrador hydro and address Innu Nation rights.

✅ 1969 contract delivers ~30 TWh at very low fixed price.

✅ Newfoundland seeks higher rates, equity, and consultation.

✅ Innu Nation demands benefits, consent, and land remediation.

As Quebec prepares to ramp up electricity production to meet its ambitious economic goals, the government is trying to extend a power deal that has caused decades of resentment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Around 15 per cent of Quebec's electricity comes from the Churchill Falls dam in Labrador, through a deal set to expire in 2041 that is widely seen as unfair. Quebec Premier François Legault not only wants to extend the agreement, he wants another dam on the Churchill River and, for now, has closed the door on nuclear power as an option to help make his province what he has called a "world leader for the green economy."

But renewing that contract "won't be easy," Normand Mousseau, scientific director of the Trottier Energy Institute at Polytechnique Montréal, said in a recent interview. Extending the Churchill Falls deal is not essential to meet Quebec's energy plans, but without it, Mousseau said, "we would have some problems."

The Legault government is enticing global companies, such as manufacturers of electric vehicle batteries, to set up shop in the province and access its hydroelectricity. But demand for Quebec's power has exceeded its supply, and Ontario has chosen not to renew a power-purchase deal with Quebec, limiting the government's vision.

Last month, Quebec's hydro utility released its strategic plan calling for a production increase of 60 terawatt hours by 2035, which represents the installed capacity of three of Hydro-Québec's largest facilities. Churchill Falls produces roughly 30 terawatt hours, and Quebec would need to replace that power if it can't strike a deal to extend the contract, Mousseau said.

If Quebec wants to keep buying power from Churchill Falls, the government is going to have to pay more, said Mousseau, who is also a physics professor at Université de Montréal. "We're paying one-fifth of a cent a kilowatt hour — that's not much," he said.

Under the 1969 contract, Quebec assumed most of the financial risk of building the Churchill Falls dam in exchange for the right to buy power at a fixed price. The deal has generated more than $28 billion for Hydro-Québec; it has returned $2 billion to Newfoundland and Labrador.

That lopsided deal has stoked anti-Quebec sentiment in Newfoundland and Labrador and contributed to nationalist politics, including threats of separation from Canada around a decade and a half ago, when Danny Williams was premier, said Jerry Bannister, a history professor at Dalhousie University.

"We tend to forget what it was like during the Williams era — he hauled down the Canadian flag," Bannister said. "There was a type of angry, combative nationalism which defined energy development. And particularly Muskrat Falls, it was payback, it was revenge."

Power from the Muskrat Falls generating station, also on the Churchill River, would be sold to Nova Scotia instead of Quebec. But that project has suffered technical problems and cost overruns since, and as of June 29, the price of Muskrat Falls had reached $13.5 billion; the province had estimated the total cost would be $7.4 billion when it sanctioned the project in 2012.

Anti-Quebec feelings may have subsided, but Bannister said the Churchill Falls deal continues to influence Newfoundland politics.

In September, Premier Andrew Furey said Legault would have to show him the money(opens in a new tab) to extend th Legault's office said Tuesday that discussions are ongoing, while the Newfoundland and Labrador government said in an emailed statement Thursday that it wants to maximize the value of its "assets and future opportunities" along the Churchill River.

Whatever negotiations are happening, Grand Chief Simon Pokue of the Innu Nation of Labrador(opens in a new tab) said he has been left out of them.

Churchill Falls flooded 6,500 square kilometres of traditional Innu land, Pokue said, adding that in response, the Innu Nation filed a $4 billion lawsuit against Hydro-Québec in 2020, which is ongoing.

"A lot of damage has been done to our lands, our land is flooded and we'll never see it again," Pokue said in a recent interview. "Nobody will ever repair that."

As well, a portion of Muskrat Falls profits was supposed to go to the Innu Nation, but the cost overruns and a refinancing deal between the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador have limited whatever money they will see.

If Legault wants another dam on the Churchill River, at Gull Island, the Innu Nation needs to be paid the kind of money it was expecting from Muskrat Falls, he said.

"You did it once, but you're not going to do it again," Pokue said. "It's not going to start until we are consulted and involved."

Meanwhile, Quebec may face competition for Churchill Falls power, Mousseau said, with at least one Labrador mining company expressing interest in buying a significant portion of its output — though he added that the dam's capacity could be increased. The low price paid by Quebec has meant there has been little incentive to upgrade the plant's turbines.

As demand for electricity rises across the country, Mousseau said he thinks it would be better for provinces to work together, sharing expertise and costs, for example through NB Power deals to import more Quebec electricity as they look across provincial borders to find the best locations for projects, rather than acting as rivals.

"We need to talk and work with other provinces, and some propose an independent planning body to guide this, but for this you need to build confidence, and there's no confidence from the Newfoundland side with respect to Quebec," he said. "So that's a challenge: how do you work on this relationship that has been broken for 50 years?"e contract, but the two premiers have said little since.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Rate lets eligible customers opt in to 2.4 cents per kWh time-of-use pricing, set by the Ontario Energy Board, as utilities roll out the plan between May 1 and Nov. 1.

Key Points

An OEB-set overnight TOU price of 2.4 cents per kWh for eligible Ontarians, rolling out in phases via local utilities.

✅ 8 of 61 utilities offering rate at May 1 launch

✅ About 20% of 5M customers eligible at rollout

✅ Enova Power delays amid merger integration work

A million households can opt into a new ultra-low overnight electricity rate offered by the Ministry of Energy, as province-wide rate changes begin, but that's just a fraction of customers in Ontario.

Only eight of the 61 provincial power utilities will offer the new rate on the May 1 launch date, following the earlier fixed COVID-19 hydro rate period. The rest have up to six months to get on board.

That means it will be available to 20 percent of the province's five million electricity consumers, the Ministry of Energy confirmed to CBC News.

The Ford government's new overnight pricing was pitched as a money saver for Ontarians, amid the earlier COVID-19 recovery rate that could raise bills, undercutting its existing overnight rate from 7.4 to 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour. Both rates are set by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB).

"We wanted to roll it out to as many people as possible," Kitchener-Conestoga PC MPP Mike Harris Jr. told CBC News. "These companies were ready to go, and we're going to continue to work with our local providers to make sure that everybody can meet that Nov. 1 deadline."

Enova Power — which serves Kitchener, Waterloo, Woolwich, Wellesley and Wilmot — won't offer the reduced overnight rate until the fall, after typical bills rose when fixed pricing ended province-wide.

Enova merger stalls adoption

The power company is the product of the recently merged Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro and Waterloo North Hydro.

The Sept. 1 merger is a major reason Enova Power isn't offering the ultra-low rate alongside the first wave of power companies, said Jeff Quint, innovation and communications manager.

"With mergers, a lot of work goes into them. We have to evaluate, merge and integrate several systems and processes," said Quint.

"We believe that we probably would have been able to make the May 1 timeline otherwise."

The ministry said retroactive pricing wouldn't be available, unlike the off-peak price freeze earlier in the pandemic, and Harris said he doesn't expect the province will issue any rebates to customers of companies that introduce the rates later than May 1.

"These organizations were able to look at rolling things out sooner. But, obviously — if you look at Toronto Hydro, London, Centre Wellington, Hearst, Renfrew — there's a dynamic range of large and smaller-scale providers there. I'm very hopeful the Region of Waterloo folks will be able to work to try and get this done as soon as we can," Harris said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Vehicle Adoption Barriers include range anxiety, charging infrastructure, and cost parity; consumer demand, tax credits, lithium-ion batteries, and performance benefits are accelerating EV uptake, pushing SUVs and self-driving tech toward mainstream mobility.

Key Points

They are the key hurdles to mainstream EV uptake: range anxiety, sparse charging networks, and high upfront costs.

✅ Range targets of 300+ miles reduce anxiety and match ICE convenience

✅ Expanded home, work, and public charging speeds adoption

✅ Falling battery costs and incentives drive price parity

The automotive industry is hurtling toward a future that will change transportation the same way electricity changed how we light the world. Electric and self-driving vehicles will alter the automotive landscape forever — it's only a question of how soon, and whether the age of electric cars arrives ahead of schedule.

Like any revolution, this one will be created by market demand.
Beyond the environmental benefit, electric vehicle owners enjoy the performance, quiet operation, robust acceleration, style and interior space. And EV owners like not having to buy gasoline. We believe the majority of these customers will stay loyal to electric cars, and U.S. EV sales are soaring into 2024 as this loyalty grows.

But what about non-EV owners? Will they want to buy electric, and is it time to buy an electric car for them yet? About 25 years ago, when we first considered getting into the electric vehicle business with a small car that had about 70 miles of range, the answer was no. But today, the results are far more encouraging.

We recently held consumer clinics in Los Angeles and Chicago and presented people with six SUV choices: three gasoline and three electric. When we asked for their first choice to purchase, 40% of the Chicago respondents chose an electric SUV, and 45% in LA did the same. This is despite a several thousand-dollar premium on the price of the electric models, and despite that EV sales still lag gas cars nationally today, consumer interest was strong (but also before crucial government tax credits that we believe will continue to drive people toward electric vehicles and help fuel market demand).

They had concerns, to be sure. Most people said they want vehicles that can match gasoline-powered vehicles in range, ease of ownership and cost. The sooner we can break down these three critical barriers, the sooner electric cars will become mainstream.

Range
Range is the single biggest barrier to EV acceptance. Just as demand for gas mileage doesn't go down when there are more gas stations, demand for better range won't ease even as charging infrastructure improves. People will still want to drive as long as possible between charges.

Most consumers surveyed during our clinics said they want at least 300 miles of range. And if you look at the market today, which is driven by early adapters, electric cars have hit an inflection point in demand, and the numbers bear that out. The vast majority of electric vehicles sold — almost 90% — are six models with the highest range of 238 miles or more — three Tesla models, the Chevrolet Bolt EV, the Hyundai Kona and the Kia Niro, according to IHS Markit data.

Lithium-ion batteries, which power virtually all electric cars on the road today, are rapidly improving, increasing range with each generation. At GM, we recently announced that our 2020 Chevrolet Bolt EV will have a range of 259 miles, a 21-mile improvement over the previous model. Range will continue to improve across the industry, and range anxiety will dissipate.

Charging infrastructure
Our research also shows that, among those who have considered buying an electric vehicle, but haven't, the lack of charging stations is the number one reason why.

For EVs to gain widespread acceptance, manufacturers, charging companies, industry groups and governments at all levels must work together to make public charging available in as many locations as possible. For example, we are seeing increased partnership activity between manufacturers and charging station companies, as well as construction companies that build large infrastructure projects, as the American EV boom approaches, with the goal of adding thousands of additional public charging stations in the United States.

Private charging stations are just as important. Nearly 80% of electric vehicle owners charge their vehicles at home, and almost 15% at work, with the rest at public stations, our research shows. Therefore, continuing to make charging easy and seamless is vital. To that end, more partnerships with companies that will install the chargers in consumers' homes conveniently and affordably will be a boon for both buyers and sellers.

Cost
Another benefit to EV ownership is a lower cost of operation. Most EV owners report that their average cost of operation is about one-third of what a gasoline-powered car owner pays. But the purchase price is typically significantly higher, and that's where we should see change as each generation of battery technology improves efficiency and reduces cost.

Looking forward, we think electric vehicle propulsion systems will achieve cost parity with internal combustion engines within a decade or sooner, and will only get better after that, driving sticker prices down and widening the appeal to the average consumer. That will be driven by a number of factors, including improvements with each generation of batteries and vehicles, as well as expected increased regulatory costs on gasoline and diesel engines.

Removing these barriers will lead to what I consider the ultimate key to widespread EV adoption — the emergence of the EV as a consumer's primary vehicle — not a single-purpose or secondary vehicle. That will happen when we as an industry are able to offer the utility, cost parity and convenience of today's internal combustion-based cars and trucks.

To get the electric vehicle to first-string status, manufacturers simply must make it as good or better than the cars, trucks and crossovers most people are used to driving today. And we must deliver on our promise of making affordable, appealing EVs in the widest range of sizes and body styles possible. When we do that, electric vehicle adoption and acceptance will be widespread, and it can happen sooner than most people think.

Mark Reuss is president of GM. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News