IAEA: no major damage to quake-hit plant

Alberta Electricity Demand Record surges during a deep freeze, as AESO reports peak load in megawatts and ENMAX notes increased usage in Calgary and Edmonton, with thermostats up amid a cold snap straining power grid.

Key Points

It is the highest electricity peak load recorded by AESO, reflecting maximum grid usage during cold snaps.

✅ AESO reported 11,729 MW peak during the deep freeze

✅ ENMAX saw a 13 percent demand jump week over week

✅ Cold snap drove thermostats up in Calgary and Edmonton

Albertans are cranking up their thermostats and blasting heat into their homes at overwhelmingly high rates as the deep freeze continues across the region. 

It’s so cold that the province set a new all-time record Tuesday evening for electricity usage. 

According to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), as electricity prices spike in Alberta during extreme demand, 11,729 MW of power was used around 7 p.m. Tuesday, passing the previous record set in January of last year by 31 MW.

Temperatures reached a low of -29 C in Calgary, where rising electricity bills have strained budgets, on Tuesday while Edmonton saw a low of -30 C, according to Environment Canada. Wind chill  made it feel closer to -40.

“That increase — 31 Megawatts — is sizeable and about the equivalent of a moderately sized generation facility,” said AESO communications director, Mike Deising. 

“We do see higher demand in winter because it’s cold and it’s dark and that’s really exactly what we’re seeing right now as demand goes up, people turn on their lights and turn up their furnaces,” and with the UCP scrapping the price cap earlier that’s really exactly what we’re seeing right now as demand goes up, people turn on their lights and turn up their furnaces.”

Deising adds Alberta’s electricity usage over the last year has actually been much lower than average, though experts urge Albertans to lock in rates amid expected volatility, despite more people staying home during the pandemic. 

That trend was continuing into 2021, but as Alberta's rising electricity prices draw attention, it’s expected that more records could be broken. 

“If the cold snap continues we may likely set another record (Wednesday) or (Thursday), depending on what happens with the temperatures,” he said. 

Meanwhile, ENMAX has reported an average real-time system demand of 1,400 MW for the city of Calgary. 

That amount is still a far cry from the current season record of 1,619 MW (Aug. 18, 2020), the all-time winter record of 1,653MW (Dec. 2, 2013), and the all-time summer record of 1,692 MW (Aug. 10, 2018). 

ENMAX says electricity demand has increased quite significantly over the past week — by about 13 per cent — since the cold snap set in. 

As a result, the energy company is once again rolling out its ‘Winter Wise’ campaign in an effort to encourage Calgarians to manage both electricity and natural gas use in the winter, even as a consumer price cap on power bills is enabled by new legislation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.

Key Points

Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.

✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices

✅ ISO-NE winter reliability rules encourage oil stockpiles

✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth

New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets. 

Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.  

Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years. 

Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said. 

“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.

During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.

Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.

Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.

But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.

After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.

We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.

That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.

So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.

The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.

Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

IRENA Climate Investment Platform accelerates renewable energy financing through de-risking, bankable projects, and public-private partnerships, advancing Paris Agreement goals via grid integration, microgrids, and decarbonization while expanding access, jobs, and sustainable economic growth.

Key Points

A global platform linking bankable renewable projects with finance, derisking and partners to scale decarbonization.

✅ Connects developers with banks, funds, and insurers

✅ Promotes de-risking via policy, PPAs, and legal frameworks

✅ Targets Paris goals with grid, microgrids, and off-grid access

The heads-of-state and energy ministers from more than 120 nations just met in Abu Dhabi and they had one thing in common: a passion to increase the use of renewable energy to reduce the threat from global warming — one that will also boost economic output and spread prosperity. Access to finance, though, is critical to this goal. 

Indeed, the central message to emerge from the conference hosted by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) this week in the United Arab Emirates is that a global energy transition is underway that has the potential to revitalize economies and to lift people out of poverty. But such a conversion requires international cooperation and a common desire to address the climate cause. 

“The renewable energy sector created jobs employing 11 million people in 2019 and provided off-grid solutions, having helped bring the number of people with no access to electricity to under 1 billion,” the current president of the UN General Assembly Tiijani Muhammad-Bande of Nigeria told the audience. 

Today In: Business
While renewables are improving energy access and reducing inequities, they also have the potential to curb CO2 emissions globally. The goal is to shrink them by 45% by 2030 and 90% by 2050, with Canada's net-zero race highlighting the role of renewable energy in achieving those targets. Getting there, though, requires progressive government policies that will help to attract financing. 

According to IRENA, investment in the clean energy sector is now at $330 billion a year. But if the 2050 goals are to be reached, those levels must nearly double to $750 billion annually. The green energy sector does not want to compete with the oil and gas sectors but rather, it is seeking to diversify fuel sources — a strategy that could help make electricity systems more resilient to climate risks. To hit the Paris agreement’s targets, it says that renewable energy deployment must increase by a factor of six.  

To that end, IRENA is forming a “climate investment platform” that will bring ideas to the table and then introduce prospective parties. It will focus on those projects that it believes are “bankable.”

It’s about helping project developers find banks, private companies and pension funds to finance their worthy projects, IRENA Director General Francesco La Camera said in response to this reporter’s question. Moreover, he said that the platform would work to ensure there is a sound legal structure and that there is legislative support to “de-risk” the investments. 

“Overcoming investment needs for energy transformation infrastructure is one of the most notable barriers to the achievement of national goals,” La Camera says. “Therefore, the provision of capital to support the adoption of renewable energy is key to low-carbon sustainable economic development and plays a central role in bringing about positive social outcomes.”

If the monies are to flow into new projects, governments have to create an environment where innovation is to be rewarded: tax incentives for renewables along with the design and implementation of transition plans. The aim is to scale up which in turn, leads to new jobs and greater economic productivity — a payback of three-to-seven times the initial investment.  

The path of least resistance, for now, is off-grid green energy solutions, or providing electricity to rural areas by installing solar panels that may connect to localized microgrids. Africa, which has a half-billion people without reliable electricity, would benefit. However, “If you want to go to scale and have bankable projects, you have to be connected to the grid,” Moira Wahba, with the UN Development Program, told this writer. “That requires large capital and private enterprise.”

Public policy must thus work to create the knowledge base and the advocacy to help de-risk the investments. Government’s role is to reassure investors that they will not be subject to arbitrary laws or the crony allocation of contracts. Risk takers know there are no guarantees. But they want to compete on a level playing. 

Analyzing Risk Profiles

He is speaking during the World Energy Future Summit. 
Sultan Al Jabber, chief executive of Abu Dhabi’s national oil company, Adnoc, who is also the former ... [+]ABU DHABI SUSTAINABILITY WEEK
How do foreign investors square the role of utilities that are considered safe and sound with their potential expansion into new fields such as investing in carbon-free electricity and in new places? The elimination of risk is not possible, says Mohamed Jameel Al Ramahi, chief executive officer of UAE-based Masdar. But the need to decarbonize is paramount. The head of the renewable energy company says that every jurisdiction has its own risk profile but that each one must be fully transparent while also properly structuring their policies and regulations. And there needs to be insurance for political risks. 

The United States and China, for example, are already “de-risked,” because they are deploying “gigawatts of renewables,” he told this writer. “When we talk about doubling the amount of needed investment, we have to take into account the risk profile of the whole world. If it is a high-risk jurisdiction, it will be difficult to bring in foreign capital.” 

The most compelling factor that will drive investment is whether the global community can comply with the Paris agreement, says Dr. Thani Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, Minister of the Ministry of Climate Change and the Environment for the United Arab Emirates. The goal is to limit increases to 2 degrees Celsius by mid-century, with the understanding that the UN’s latest climate report emphasizes that positive results are urgently needed. 

One of the most effective mechanisms is the public-private model. Governments, for example, are signing long-term power purchase agreements, giving project developers the necessary income they need to operate, and in the EU plans to double electricity use by 2050 are reinforcing these commitments. They can also provide grants and bring in international partners such as the World Bank. 

“We are seeing the impact of climate change with the various extreme events: the Australian fires, the cyclones and the droughts,” the minister told reporters. “We can no longer pass this to future generations to deal with.” 

The United Arab Emirates is not just talking about it, adds Sultan Al Jabber, chief executive of Abu Dhabi’s national oil company, Adnoc, who is also the former head of subsidiary Masdar. It is acting now, and across Europe Big Oil is turning electric as traditional players pivot too. His comments came during Abu Dhabi’s Sustainability Week at the World Future Energy Summit. The country is “walking the walk” by investing in renewable projects around the globe and it is growing its own green energy portfolio. Addressing climate change is “right” while it is also making “perfect economic sense.” 

The green energy transition has taken root in advanced economies while it is making inroads in the developing world — a movement that has the twin effect of addressing climate change and creating economic opportunities, and one that aligns with calls to transform into a sustainable electric planet for long-term prosperity. But private investment must double, which requires proactive governments to limit unnecessary risks and to craft the incentives to attract risk-takers. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Uranium Critical Mineral Reclassification signals a US executive order directing USGS to restore critical status, boosting nuclear energy, domestic uranium mining, streamlined permitting, federal support, and energy security amid import reliance and supply chain risks.

Key Points

A policy relisting uranium as a critical mineral to unlock funding, speed permits, and strengthen U.S. nuclear security.

✅ Directs Interior to have USGS reconsider uranium classification

✅ Speeds permits for domestic uranium mining projects

✅ Targets import dependence and strengthens energy security

In a strategic move to bolster the United States' nuclear energy sector, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, directing the Secretary of the Interior to instruct the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to reconsider classifying uranium as a critical mineral. This directive aims to enhance federal support and streamline permitting processes for domestic uranium projects, thereby strengthening U.S. energy security objectives.

Reclassification of Uranium as a Critical Mineral

The USGS had previously removed uranium from its critical minerals list in 2022, categorizing it as a "fuel mineral" that did not qualify for such designation. The recent executive order seeks to reverse this decision, recognizing uranium's strategic importance in the context of the nation's energy infrastructure and geopolitical considerations.

Implications for Domestic Uranium Production

Reclassifying uranium as a critical mineral is expected to unlock federal funding and expedite the permitting process for uranium mining projects within the United States. This initiative is particularly pertinent given the significant decline in domestic uranium production over the past two decades. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic production has decreased by 96%, from 4.8 million pounds in 2014 to approximately 121,296 pounds in the third quarter of 2024.

Current Uranium Supply Dynamics

Despite the push for increased domestic production, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on uranium imports. In 2022, 27% of U.S. uranium purchases were sourced from Canada, with an additional 57% imported from countries including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Australia, and Russia; a recent ban on Russian uranium could further disrupt these supply patterns and heighten risks. This reliance on foreign sources has raised concerns about energy security, especially in light of recent geopolitical tensions.

Challenges and Considerations

While the executive order represents a significant step toward revitalizing the U.S. nuclear energy sector, several challenges persist, and energy dominance faces constraints that will shape implementation:

• Regulatory Hurdles: Accelerating the permitting process for uranium mining projects involves navigating complex environmental and regulatory frameworks, though recent permitting reforms for geothermal hint at potential pathways, which can be time-consuming and contentious.

• Market Dynamics: The uranium market is subject to global supply and demand fluctuations, and domestic producers may face competition from established international suppliers.

• Infrastructure Development: Expanding domestic uranium production necessitates substantial investment in mining infrastructure and workforce development, areas that have been underfunded in recent years.

Broader Implications for Nuclear Energy Policy

The executive order aligns with a broader strategy to revitalize the U.S. nuclear energy industry, where ongoing nuclear innovation is critical to delivering stable, low-emission power. The increasing demand for nuclear energy is driven by the global push for zero-emissions energy sources and the need to support power-intensive technologies, such as artificial intelligence servers.

Former President Trump's executive order to reclassify uranium as a critical mineral, aligning with his broader energy agenda and a prior pledge to end the 'war on coal', signifies a pivotal moment for the U.S. nuclear energy sector. By potentially unlocking federal support, including programs advanced by the Nuclear Innovation Act, and streamlining permitting processes, this initiative aims to reduce dependence on foreign uranium sources and enhance national energy security. However, realizing these objectives will require addressing regulatory challenges, market dynamics, and infrastructure needs to ensure the successful revitalization of the domestic uranium industry.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Hydro Rate Relief Plan delivers short-term electricity bill cuts, while leaked cabinet forecasts show inflation-linked hikes, borrowing costs, and a Clean Energy Adjustment under the province's long-term energy plan.

Key Points

A provincial plan that cuts bills now but defers costs, projecting rate hikes and adding a Clean Energy Adjustment.

✅ 25% cut now, after 8% HST relief; extra 17% reduction applied.

✅ Forecast: inflation-linked hikes later; borrowing adds long-term costs.

✅ Clean Energy Adjustment line to repay deferred system costs.

The short-term gain of a 25 per cent hydro rate cut this summer could lead to long-term pain as a leaked cabinet document forecasts prices jumping again in five years.

In the briefing materials leaked and obtained by the Progressive Conservatives, rates will start rising 6.5 per cent a year in 2022 and top out at 10.5 per cent in 2028, when average monthly bills hit $215.

That would be up from $123 this year once the rate cut — the subject of long-awaited legislation to lower electricity rates unveiled Thursday by Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault — takes full effect. There will be another 17-per-cent cut in addition to the 8 per cent taken off bills in January when the provincial portion of the HST was waived.

The leaked papers overshadowed Thibeault’s efforts to tout the price break, which will be followed with four years of hydro rate increases at 2 per cent, roughly the rate of inflation.

Thibeault charged that the Conservatives used an “outdated” document to distract from the fact that they are the only major party without a plan for dealing with skyrocketing hydro rates, with a year to go until next June’s provincial election.

“It’s not a coincidence,” he told reporters, denying any plans for an eventual 10.5-per-cent rate hike and promising the government’s new long-term energy plan, due in a few months, will have better numbers.

“We are working hard right now to continue to pull costs out of the system.”

Opposition parties said the Liberal plan doesn’t deal with the underlying problems that have made electricity expensive and simply borrows money to spread the costs over a longer period of time, with $25 billion in interest charges over 30 years.

Some observers also noted that a deal with Quebec would not reduce hydro bills, highlighting concerns about lasting affordability.

“The price of electricity is going to skyrocket after the next election,” warned Conservative MPP Todd Smith (Prince Edward—Hastings).

“The government isn’t being honest with the people of Ontario when it comes to the price of electricity.”

The documents show average monthly bills peaking at $231 in the year 2047, before falling back to $210 the following year once the 30 years of interest payments are over.

Conservative sources say they obtained the papers stamped “confidential cabinet document” from a whistleblower after Thibeault’s rate cut plan was presented to cabinet ministers at a meeting in early March.

There is no date on the document, which the energy minister alternately dismissed as “inaccurate” or possibly one of many that have been prepared with different options in mind.

“We’ve had hundreds of briefings with hundreds of documents … I can’t comment on one graph when we’ve been looking at hundreds of scenarios.”

New Democrats, who have proposed a scheme to cut rates, if elected, also called the government plan an election ploy with Liberals lagging in the polls.

“We’re going to take on a huge debt so (Premier) Kathleen Wynne can look good on the hustings in the next few months, and for decades we’re going to pay for it,” said MPP Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth).

Thibeault acknowledged the Liberal plan will start repaying borrowed money in the mid- or late 2020s and it will show up separately on hydro bills as the “Clean Energy Adjustment”, a kind of electricity recovery rate that could raise costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News