Siemens wins billion-dollar wind power orders

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Canadian Softwood Lumber Tariffs challenge British Columbia's forestry sector, strain U.S.-Canada trade, and risk redirecting critical minerals and energy resources, threatening North American supply chains, manufacturing, and energy security across integrated markets.

Key Points

Duties imposed by the U.S. on Canadian lumber, affecting BC forestry, trade flows, and North American energy security.

✅ U.S. duties strain BC forestry and cross-border supply chains

✅ Risks redirecting critical minerals and energy exports

✅ Tariff rollback could bolster North American energy security

British Columbia Premier David Eby has raised concerns that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber are prompting the province to redirect its critical minerals and energy resources, while B.C. challenges Alberta's electricity export restrictions domestically, away from the United States. In a recent interview, Eby emphasized the broader implications of these tariffs, suggesting they could undermine North American energy security and put electricity exports at risk across the border.

Since 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports, alleging that Canadian producers benefit from unfair subsidies. These duties have been a persistent source of tension between the two nations, coinciding with Canadian support for energy and mineral tariffs and significantly impacting British Columbia's forestry sector—a cornerstone of the province's economy.

Premier Eby highlighted that the financial strain imposed by these tariffs not only jeopardizes the Canadian forestry industry but also has unintended repercussions for the United States. He pointed out that the economic challenges faced by Canadian producers might lead them to seek alternative markets for their critical minerals and energy resources, as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects domestically, thereby reducing the supply to the U.S. British Columbia is endowed with an abundance of critical minerals essential for various industries, including technology and defense.

The potential redirection of these resources could have significant consequences for American industries that depend on a stable and affordable supply of critical minerals and energy. Eby suggested that the tariffs might incentivize Canadian producers to explore other international markets, even as experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid the tariff dispute, diminishing the availability of these vital resources to the U.S.

In light of these concerns, Premier Eby has advocated for a reassessment of the tariffs, urging a more cooperative approach between Canada and the United States. He contends that eliminating the tariffs would be mutually beneficial, aligning with views that Biden is better for Canada's energy sector and cross-border collaboration, ensuring a consistent supply of critical resources and fostering economic growth in both countries.

The issue of U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber remains complex and contentious, with far-reaching implications for trade relations and resource distribution between the two nations. As discussions continue, stakeholders on both sides of the border are closely monitoring the situation, noting that Ford has threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports amid trade tensions, recognizing the importance of collaboration in addressing shared economic and security challenges.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Australian Electric Vehicle Sales tripled in 2019 amid expanding charging infrastructure and more models, but market share remains low, constrained by limited government policy, weak incentives, and absent emissions standards despite growing ultra-fast chargers.

Key Points

EV units sold in Australia; in 2019 they tripled to 6,718, but market share was just 0.6%.

✅ Sales rose from 2,216 (2018) to 6,718 (2019); ~80% were BEVs.

✅ Public charging sites reached 2,307; fast chargers up 40% year-on-year.

✅ Policy gaps and absent standards limit model supply and EV uptake.

Sales of electric vehicles in Australia tripled in 2019 despite a lack of government support, according to the industry’s peak body.

The country’s network of EV charging stations was also growing, the Electric Vehicle Council’s annual report found, including a rise in the number of faster charging stations that let drivers recharge a car in about 15 minutes.

But the report, released on Wednesday, found the market share for electric vehicles was still only 0.6% of new vehicle sales – well behind the 2.5% to 5% in other developed countries.

The chief executive of the council, Behyad Jafari, said the rise in sales was down to more models becoming available. There are now 28 electric models on sale, with eight priced below $65,000.

Six more were due to arrive before the end of 2021, including two priced below $50,000, the council’s report said.

“We have repeatedly heard from car companies that they were planning to bring vehicles here, but Australia doesn’t have that policy support.”

The Morrison government promised a national electric vehicle strategy would be finalised by the middle of this year, but the policy has been delayed. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, last year accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” and force people out of four-wheel drives after the opposition set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.

Jafari cited the Kia e-Niro – an award-winning electric SUV that was being prepared for an Australian launch, but is now reportedly on hold because the manufacturer favoured shipping to countries with emissions standards.

The council’s members include BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and Harley Davidson, as well as energy, technology and charging infrastructure companies.

Sales of electric vehicles – which include plug-in hybrids – went from 2,216 in 2018 to 6,718 in 2019, the report said. Jafari said about 80% of those sales were all-electric vehicles.

There have been 3,226 electric vehicles sold in 2020, the report said, despite an overall drop of 20% in vehicle sales due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while U.S. EV sales have surged into 2024.

Jafari said: “Our report is showing that Australian consumers want these cars.

“There is no controversy that the future of the industry is electric, but at the moment the industry is looking at different markets. We want policies that show [Australia] is going on this journey.”

Government agency data has forecast that half the new cars sold will be electric by 2035, underscoring that the age of electric cars is arriving even if there is no policy to support their uptake.

Manufacturers currently selling electric cars in Australia are Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar and Renault, the report said.

Jafari said most G20 countries had emissions standards in place for vehicles sold and incentives in place to support electric vehicles, such as rebates or exemptions from charges. This hadn’t happened in Australia, he said.

The report said: “Globally, carmakers are rolling out more electric vehicle models as the electric car market expands, but so far production cannot keep up with demand. This means that without policy signals, Australians will continue to be denied access to the full global range of electric vehicles.”

On Tuesday, one Australian charging provider, Evie Networks, opened an ultra-fast station at a rest stop at Campbell Town in Tasmania – between Launceston and Hobart.

The company said the station would connect EV owners in the state’s north and south and the two 350kW chargers could recharge a vehicle in 15 minutes, highlighting whether grids have the power to charge EVs at scale. Two more sites were planned for Tasmania, the company said.

A Tasmanian government grant to support electric vehicle charging had helped finance the site. Evie was also supported with a $15m grant from the federal government’s Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

According to the council report, Australia now has 2,307 public charging stations, including 357 fast chargers – a rise of 40% in the past year.

A survey of 2,900 people in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia, carried out by NRMA, RACV and RAA on behalf of the council, found the main barriers to buying an electric vehicle were concerns over access to charging points, higher prices and uncertainty over driving range.

Consumers favoured electric vehicles because of their environmental footprint, lower maintenance costs and vehicle performance.

The report said the average battery range of electric vehicles available in Australia was 400km, but almost 80% of people thought the average was less.

According to the survey, 56% of Australians would consider an electric car when they next bought a vehicle, and in the UK, EV inquiries soared during a fuel supply crisis.

“We are far behind, but it is surmountable,” Jafari said.

The council report also rated state and territories on the policies that supported its industry and found the ACT was leading, followed by NSW and Queensland.

A review of commercial electric vehicle use found public electric bus trials were planned or under way in Queensland, NSW, WA, Victoria and ACT. There are now more than 400,000 electric buses in use around the globe.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

India Industrial Output Slowdown deepens as power demand slumps, IIP contracts, and electricity, manufacturing, and mining weaken; capital goods plunge while RBI rate cuts struggle to lift GDP growth, infrastructure, and fuel demand.

Key Points

A downturn where IIP contracts as power demand, manufacturing, mining, and capital goods fall despite RBI rate cuts.

✅ IIP fell 4.3% in Sep, worst since Feb 2013.

✅ Power demand dropped for a third month, signaling weak industry.

✅ Capital goods output plunged 20.7%, highlighting weak investment.

India's power demand fell at the fastest pace in at least 12 years in October, signalling a continued decline in the industrial output, mirroring how China's power demand dropped when plants were shuttered, according to government data. Electricity has about 8% weighting in the country's index for industrial production.

India needs electricity to fuel its expanding economy and has at times rationed coal supplies when demand surged, but a third decline in power consumption in as many months points to tapering industrial activity in a nation that aims to become a $5 trillion economy by 2024.

India's industrial output fell at the fastest pace in over six years in September, adding to a series of weak indicators that suggests that the country’s economic slowdown is deep-rooted and interest rate cuts alone may not be enough to revive growth.

Annual industrial output contracted 4.3% in September, government data showed on Monday. It was the worst performance since a 4.4% contraction in February 2013, according to Refinitiv data.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast industrial output to fall 2% for the month.

“A contraction of industrial production by 4.3% in September is serious and indicative of a significant slowdown as both investment and consumption demand have collapsed,” said Rupa Rege Nitsure, chief economist of L&T Finance Holdings.

The industrial output figure is the latest in a series of worrying economic data in Asia's third largest economy, which is also the world's third-largest electricity producer as well.

Economists say that weak series of data could mean economic growth for July-September period will remain near April-June quarter levels of 5%, which was a six-year low, and some analysts argue for rewiring India's electricity to bolster productivity. The Indian government is likely to release April-September economic growth figures by the end of this month.

Subdued inflation and an economic slowdown have prompted the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to cut interest rates by a total of 135 basis points this year, while coal and electricity shortages eased in recent months.

“These are tough times for the RBI, as it cannot do much about it but there will be pressures on it to act ...Blunt tools like monetary policy may not be effective anymore,” Nitsure said.

Data showed in September mining sector fell 8.5%, while manufacturing and electricity fell 3.9% and 2.6% respectively, even as imported coal volumes rose during April-October. Capital goods output during the month fell 20.7%, indicating sluggish demand.

“IIP (Index of Industrial Production) growth in October 2019 is also likely to be in negative territory and only since November 2019 one can expect mild IIP expansion, said Devendra Kumar Pant, Chief Economist and Senior Director, Public Finance, India Ratings & Research (Fitch Group).

Infrastructure output, which comprises eight main sectors, in September showed a contraction of 5.2%, the worst in 14 years, even as global daily electricity demand fell about 15% during pandemic lockdowns.

India's fuel demand fell to its lowest in more than two years in September, with consumption of diesel to its lowest levels since January 2017. Diesel and gasoline together make up over 7.4% of the IIP weightage.

In 2019/20 India's fuel demand — also seen as an indicator of economic and industrial activity — is expected to post the slowest growth in about six years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News