​ATCO Electric has received approval from the Alberta Utilities Commission AUC to build the Eastern Alberta Transmission Line. The 500-kilovolt direct current line, and its associated converter stations and facilities, extends from the Gibbons area northeast of Edmonton to an area near Brooks in southeast Alberta. It adds additional capacity to Alberta’s existing electricity transmission system.
In developing the application, ATCO Electric conducted an extensive public engagement process that included information campaigns, open houses and thousands of individual meetings with landowners. The information gained through this process was instrumental in defining the preferred and alternate routes submitted by ATCO Electric and, ultimately, the route approved by the AUC.
“I want to extend my thanks to the landowners that participated in the process. The decision is the result of three years of hard work and consultation and directly reflects the input that we received throughout the process,” said Sett Policicchio, President, ATCO Electric Capital Projects Division. “We look forward to continuing to work together with these landowners and the communities of eastern Alberta as we begin to build this critically important piece of infrastructure for Alberta.”
When complete, the Eastern Alberta Transmission Line will reinforce the reliability, increase the capacity and improve the efficiency of the Alberta grid. The line will help meet the growing demand for electricity in the province, allowing it to flow from where it is generated to where it is needed.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
UK Energy Price Cap aims to protect consumers on gas and electricity bills, tackling Big Six overcharging on default and standard variable tariffs, with Ofgem and MPs pushing urgent reforms to the broken market.
Key Points
A temporary absolute limit on default energy tariffs to shield consumers from overcharging on gas and electricity bills.
✅ Caps standard variable and default tariffs to protect loyalty.
✅ Targets Big Six pricing; oversight by Ofgem and BEIS MPs.
✅ Aims for winter protection while maintaining competition.
MPs are calling for a cap on the price of gas and electricity, with questions over the expected cost of a UK price cap amid fears consumers are being ripped off.
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Select Committee says the Big Six energy companies have been overcharging for years.
MPs on the committee backed plans for a temporary absolute cap, noting debates over EU gas price cap strategies to fix what they called a "broken" energy market.
Labour's Rachel Reeves, who chairs the committee, said: "The energy market is broken. Energy is an essential good and yet millions of customers are ripped off for staying loyal to their energy provider.
"An energy price cap is now necessary and the Government must act urgently to ensure it is in place to protect customers next winter.
"The Big Six energy companies might whine and wail about the introduction of a price cap but they've been overcharging their customers on default and SVTs (standard variable tariffs) for years and their recent feeble efforts to move consumers off these tariffs has only served to highlight the need for this intervention."
The Committee also criticised Ofgem for failing to protect customers, especially the most vulnerable.
Draft legislation for an absolute cap on energy tariffs was published by the Government last year, and later developments like the Energy Security Bill have kept reform on the agenda.
But Business Secretary Greg Clark refused to guarantee that the flagship plans would be in place by next winter, despite warnings about high winter energy costs for households.
Committee members said there was a "clear lack of will" on the part of the Big Six to do what was necessary, including exploring decoupling gas and electricity prices, to deal with pricing problems.
A report from the committee found that customers are paying £1.4bn a year more than they should be under the current system.
Around 12 million households are stuck on poor-value tariffs, according to the report.
National assistance charity Citizens Advice said "loyal and vulnerable" customers had been "ripped off" for too long.
Chief executive Gillian Guy said: "An absolute cap, as recommended by the committee, is crucial to securing protection for the largest number of customers while continuing to provide competition in the market. This should apply to all default tariffs."
Hydro Quebec transmission expansion aims to move surplus hydroelectric capacity from record reservoirs to the US grid via new interties, increasing exports to New England and New York amid rising winter peak demand.
Key Points
A plan to add capacity and intertie links to export surplus hydro power from Quebec's reservoirs to the US grid.
✅ 245 MW added in 2021; portfolio reaches 37,012 MW
✅ Reservoirs at unprecedented levels; export potential high
✅ Lacks US transmission; working on new interties
Hydro Quebec plans to add an incremental 245 MW of hydro-electric generation capacity in 2021 to its expansive portfolio in the north of the province, while Quebec authorized nearly 1,000 MW for industrial projects across the region, bringing the total capacity to 37,012 MW, an official said Friday
Quebec`s highest peak demand of 39,240 MW occurred on January 22, 2014.
The province-owned company produced 205.1 TWh of power in 2017 and its net exports were 34.4 TWh that year, while Ontario chose not to renew a power deal in a separate development.
Sutherland said Hydro Quebec`s reservoirs are currently at "unprecedented levels" and the company could export more of its electricity to New England and New York, but faces transmission constraints that limit its ability to do so.
Hydro Quebec is working with US transmission developers, electric distribution companies, independent system operators and state government agencies to expand that transmission capacity in order to delivery more power from its hydro system to the US, Sutherland said.
Separately, NB Power signed three deals to bring more Quebec electricity into the province, reflecting growing regional demand.
The last major intertie connection between Quebec and the US was completed close to 30 years ago. The roughly 2,000 MW capacity transmission line that connects into the Boston area was completed in the late 1990s, according to Hydro Quebec spokeswoman Lynn St-Laurent.
Great Britain electricity generation spans renewables and baseload: wind, solar, nuclear, gas, and biomass, supported by National Grid interconnectors, embedded energy estimates, and BMRS data for dynamic imports and exports across Europe.
Key Points
A diverse, weather-driven mix of renewables, gas, nuclear, and imports coordinated by National Grid.
✅ Baseload from nuclear and biomass; intermittent wind and solar
✅ Interconnectors trade zero carbon imports via subsea cables
✅ Data from BMRS and ESO covers embedded energy estimates
Great Britain has one of the most diverse ranges of electricity generation in Europe, with everything from windfarms off the coast of Scotland to a nuclear power station in Suffolk tasked with keeping the lights on. The increasing reliance on renewable energy sources, as part of the country’s green ambitions, also means there can be rapid shifts in the main source of electricity generation. On windy days, most electricity generation comes from record wind generation across onshore and offshore windfarms. When conditions are cold and still, gas-fired power stations known as peaking plants are called into action.
The electricity system in Great Britain relies on a combination of “baseload” power – from stable generators such as nuclear and biomass plants – and “intermittent” sources, such as wind and solar farms that need the right weather conditions to feed energy into the grid. National Grid also imports energy from overseas, through subsea cables known as interconnectors that link to France, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. They allow companies to trade excess power, such as renewable energy created by the sun, wind and water, between different countries. By 2030 it is hoped that 90% of the energy imported by interconnectors will be from zero carbon energy sources, though low-carbon electricity generation stalled in 2019 for the UK.
The technology behind Great Britain’s power generation has evolved significantly over the last century, and at times wind has been the main source of electricity. The first integrated national grid in the world was formed in 1935 linking seven regions of the UK. In the aftermath of industrialisation, coal provided the vast majority of power, before oil began to play an increasingly important part in the 1950s. In 1956, the world’s first commercial nuclear reactor, Calder Hall 1 at Windscale (later Sellafield), was opened by Queen Elizabeth II. Coal use fell significantly in the 1990s while the use of combined cycle gas turbines grew, and in 2016 wind generated more electricity than coal for the first time. Now a combination of gas, wind, nuclear and biomass provide the bulk of Great Britain’s energy, with smaller sources such as solar and hydroelectric power also used. From October 2024, coal will no longer be used to generate electricity, following coal-free power records set in recent years.
Energy generation data is fetched from the Balancing Mechanism Reporting Service public feed, provided by Elexon – which runs the wholesale energy market – and is updated every five minutes, covering periods when wind led the power mix as well.
Elexon’s data does not include embedded energy, which is unmetered and therefore invisible to Great Britain’s National Grid. Embedded energy comprises all solar energy and wind energy generated from non-metered turbines. To account for these figures we use embedded energy estimates from the National Grid electricity system operator, which are published every 30 minutes.
Import figures refer to the net flow of electricity from the interconnectors with Europe and with Northern Ireland. A positive value represents import into the GB transmission system, while a negative value represents an export.
Hydro figures combine renewable run-of-the-river hydropower and pumped storage.
Biomass figures include Elexon’s “other” category, which comprises coal-to-biomass conversions and biomass combined heat and power plants.
Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project faces NEB certificate review, with public hearings, Indigenous consultation, and cross-border approval weighing permit vs certificate timelines, potential land expropriation, and Hydro's 2020 in-service date for the 308-MW intertie.
Key Points
A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba and Minnesota, now under NEB review through a permit or certificate process.
✅ NEB recommends certificate with public hearings and cabinet approval
✅ Stakeholders cite land, health, and economic impacts along route
A recommendation from the National Energy Board could push back the construction start date of a $453-million hydroelectric transmission line from Manitoba to Minnesota.
In a letter to federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, the regulatory agency recommends using a "certificate" approval process, which could take more time than the simpler "permit" process Manitoba Hydro favours.
The certificate process involves public hearings, reflecting First Nations intervention seen in other power-line debates, to weigh the merits of the project, which would then go to the federal cabinet for approval.
The NEB says this process would allow for more procedural flexibility and "address Aboriginal concerns that may arise in the circumstances of this process."
The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project would provide the final link in a chain that brings hydroelectricity from generating stations in northern Manitoba, through the Bipole III transmission line and, like the New England Clean Power Link project, across the U.S. border as part of a 308-megawatt deal with the Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service.
When Hydro filed its application in December 2016, it had expected to have approval by the end of August 2017 and to begin construction on the line in mid-December, in order to have the line in operation by May or June 2020.
Groups representing stakeholders along the proposed route of the transmission line had mixed reactions to the energy board's recommendation.
A lawyer representing a coalition of more than 120 landowners in the Rural Municipality of Taché and around La Broquerie, Man., welcomed the opportunity to have a more "fulsome" discussion about the project.
"I think it's a positive step. As people become more familiar with the project, the deficiencies with it become more obvious," said Kevin Toyne, who represents the Southeast Stakeholders Coalition.
Toyne said some coalition members are worried that Hydro will forcibly expropriate land in order to build the line, while others are worried about potential economic and health impacts of having the line so close to their homes. They have proposed moving the line farther east.
When the Clean Environment Commission — an arm's-length provincial government agency — held public hearings on the proposed route earlier this year, the coalition brought their concerns forward, echoing Site C opposition voiced by northerners, but Toyne says both the commission and Hydro ignored them.
Hydro still aiming for 2020 in-service date
The Manitoba Métis Federation also participated in those public hearings. MMF president David Chartrand worries about the impact a possible delay, as seen with the Site C work halt tied to treaty rights, could have on revenue from sales of hydroelectric power to the U.S.
"I know that a lot of money, billions have been invested on this line. And if the connection line is not done, then of course this will be sitting here, not gaining any revenue, which will affect every Métis in this province, given our Hydro bill's going to go up," Chartrand said.The NEB letter to Minister Carr requests that he "determine this matter in an expedited manner."
Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email that the Crown corporation will participate in whatever process, permit or certificate, the NEB takes.
"Manitoba Hydro does not have any information at this point in time that would change the estimated in-service date (May-June 2020) for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project," he said.
The federal government "is currently reviewing the NEB's recommendation to designate the project as subject to a certificate, which would result in public hearings," said Alexandre Deslongchamps, a spokesperson for Carr.
"Under the National Energy Board Act, an international power line requires either the approval by the NEB through a permit or approval by the Government of Canada by a certificate. Both must be issued by the NEB," he wrote in an email to CBC News.
By law, the certificate process is not to take longer than 15 months.
B.C. EV Charging Rebates boost CleanBC incentives as NRCan and ZEVIP funding covers up to 75% of Level 2 and DC fast-charger purchase and installation costs for homes, workplaces, condos, apartments, and fleet operators.
Key Points
Incentives in B.C. cover up to 75% of Level 2 and DC fast charger costs for homes, workplaces, and fleets.
✅ Up to 75% back; Level 2 max $5,000; DC fast max $75,000 for fleets.
✅ Funded by CleanBC with NRCan ZEVIP; time-limited top-up.
The Province and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) are making it more affordable for people to install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in their homes, businesses and communities, as EV demand ramps up across the province.
B.C. residents, businesses and municipalities can receive higher rebates for EV charging stations through the CleanBC Go Electric EV Charger Rebate and Fleets programs. For a limited time, funding will cover as much as 75% of eligible purchase and installation costs for EV charging stations, which is an increase from the previous 50% coverage.
“With electric vehicles representing 13% of all new light-duty vehicles sold in B.C. last year, our province has the strongest adoption rate of electric vehicles in Canada. We’re positioning ourselves to become leaders in the EV industry,” said Bruce Ralston, B.C.’s Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. “We’re working with our federal partners to increase rebates for home, workplace and fleet charging, and making it easier and more affordable for people to make the switch to electric vehicles.”
With a $2-million investment through NRCan’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program (ZEVIP) to top up the Province’s EV Charger Rebate program, workplaces, condominiums and apartments can get a rebate for a Level 2 charging station for as much as 75% of purchase and installation costs to a maximum of $5,000. As many as 360 EV chargers will be installed through the program.
“We’re making electric vehicles more affordable and charging more accessible where Canadians live, work and play,” said Jonathan Wilkinson, federal Minister of Natural Resources. “Investing in more EV chargers, like the ones announced today in British Columbia, will put more Canadians in the driver’s seat on the road to a net-zero future and help achieve our climate goals.”
Through the CleanBC Go Electric Fleets program and in support of B.C. businesses that own and operate fleet vehicles, NRCan has invested $1.54 million through ZEVIP to top up rebates. Fleet operators can get combined rebates from NRCan and the Province for a Level 2 charging station as much as 75% to a maximum of $5,000 of purchase and installation costs, and 75% to a maximum of $75,000 for a direct-current, fast-charging station. As many as 450 EV chargers will be installed through the program.
CleanBC is a pathway to a more prosperous, balanced and sustainable future. It supports government’s commitment to climate action to meet B.C.’s emission targets and build a cleaner, stronger economy.
Quick Facts:
A direct-current fast charger on the BC Electric Highway allows an EV to get 100-300 kilometres of range from 30 minutes of charging.
Faster chargers, which give more range in less time, are coming out every year.
A Level 2 charger allows an EV to get approximately 30 kilometres of range per hour of charging.
It uses approximately the same voltage as a clothes dryer and is usually installed in homes, workplaces or for fleets to get a faster charge than a regular outlet, or in public places where people might park for a longer time.
A key CleanBC action is to strengthen the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act to require light-duty vehicle sales to be 26% zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2026, 90% by 2030 and 100% by 2035, five years ahead of the original target.
To learn more about home and workplace EV charging-station rebates, eligibility and application processes, visit: https://goelectricbc.gov.bc.ca/
To learn more about the Fleets program, visit: https://pluginbc.ca/go-electric-fleets/
To learn more about Natural Resources Canada’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program, visit: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/transportation-alternative-fuels/zero-emission-vehicle-infrastructure-program/21876
