Areva T&D sale official

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Pumped Storage advances as Ontario's largest energy storage project, delivering clean electricity, long-duration capacity, and grid reliability for peak demand, led by TC Energy and Saugeen Ojibway Nation, with IESO review underway.

Key Points

A long-duration storage project in Meaford storing clean power for peak demand, supporting Ontario's emission-free grid.

✅ Stores clean electricity to power 1M homes for 11 hours

✅ Partnership: TC Energy and Saugeen Ojibway Nation

✅ Pending IESO review and OEB regulation decisions

In a bid to accelerate the province's ambitions for clean economic growth, TC Energy Corporation has announced significant progress in the development of the Ontario Pumped Storage Project. The Government of Ontario in Canada has unveiled a plan to address growing energy needs as a sustainable road map aimed at achieving an emission-free electricity sector, and as part of this plan, the Ministry of Energy is set to undertake a final evaluation of the proposed Ontario Pumped Storage Project. A decision is expected to be reached by the end of the year.

Ontario Pumped Storage is a collaborative effort between TC Energy and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. The project is designed to be Ontario's largest energy storage initiative, capable of storing clean electricity to power one million homes for 11 hours. As the province strives to transition to a cleaner electricity grid by embracing clean power across sectors, long duration storage solutions like Ontario Pumped Storage will play a pivotal role in providing reliable, emission-free power during peak demand periods.

The success of the Project hinges on the approval of TC Energy's board of directors and a fruitful partnership agreement with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. TC Energy is aiming for a final investment decision in 2024, as Ontario confronts an electricity shortfall in the coming years, with the anticipated in-service date being in the early 2030s, pending regulatory and corporate approvals.

“Ontario Pumped Storage will be a critical component of Ontario’s growing clean economy and will deliver significant benefits and savings to consumers,” said Corey Hessen, Executive Vice-President and President, TC Energy, Power and Energy Solutions. “Ontario continues to attract major investments that will have large power needs — many of which are seeking zero-emission energy before they invest. We are pleased the government is advancing efforts to recognize the significant role that long duration storage plays — firming resources, including new gas plants under provincial consideration, will become increasingly valuable in supporting a future emission-free electricity system.” 

The Municipality of Meaford also expressed its support for the project, recognizing the positive impact it could have on the local economy and the overall electricity system of Ontario. Additionally, various stakeholders, including LiUNA OPDC, LiUNA Local 183, and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, lauded the potential for job creation, training opportunities, and resilient energy infrastructure as Ontario seeks new wind and solar power to ease a coming electricity supply crunch.

The timeline for Ontario Pumped Storage's progress includes a final analysis by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to confirm its role in Ontario's electricity system and in balancing demand and emissions during the transition, to be completed by 30 September 2023. Concurrently, the Ministry of Energy will engage in consultations on the potential regulation of the Project via the Ontario Energy Board, while debates over clean, affordable electricity intensify ahead of the Ontario election, with a final determination scheduled for 30 November 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Electricity Market Reform seeks to curb gas-driven volatility by expanding CfDs and PPAs, decoupling power from gas, and aligning consumer bills with low-cost renewables and nuclear, as Brussels advances market redesign.

Key Points

An EU plan to curb price spikes by expanding long-term contracts and tying bills to cheap renewables.

✅ Expands CfDs and PPAs to lock in predictable power prices

✅ Aims to decouple bills from gas-driven wholesale volatility

✅ Seeks investment certainty for renewables, nuclear, and grids

European Union energy ministers meet on Monday to debate upcoming power market reforms. Brussels is set to propose the revamp next month, but already countries are split over how to "fix" the energy system - or whether it needs fixing at all.

Here's what you need to know.

POST-CRISIS CHANGES
The European Commission pledged last year to reform the EU's electricity market rules, after record-high gas prices - caused by cuts to Russian gas flows - sent power prices soaring during an energy crisis for European companies and citizens.

The aim is to reform the electricity market to shield consumer energy bills from short-term swings in fossil fuel prices, and make sure that Europe's growing share of low-cost renewable electricity translates into lower prices, even though rolling back electricity prices poses challenges for policymakers.

Currently, power prices in Europe are set by the running cost of the plant that supplies the final chunk of power needed to meet overall demand. Often, that is a gas plant, so gas price spikes can send electricity prices soaring.

EU countries disagree on how far the reforms should go.

Spain, France and Greece are among those seeking a deep reform.

In a document shared with EU countries, seen by Reuters, Spain said the reforms should help national regulators to sign more long-term contracts with electricity generators to pay a fixed price for their power.

Nuclear and renewable energy producers, for example, would receive a "contract for difference" (CfD) from the government to provide power during their lifespan - potentially decades - at a stable price that reflects their average cost of production.

Similarly, France suggests, as part of a new electricity pricing scheme, requiring energy suppliers to sign long-term, fixed-price contracts with power generators - either through a CfD, or a private Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between the parties.

French officials say this would give the power plant owner predictable revenue, while enabling consumers to have part of their energy bill comprised of this more stable price.

Germany, Denmark, Latvia and four other countries oppose a deep reform, and, as nine EU countries oppose reforms overall, have warned the EU against a "crisis mode" overhaul of a complex system that has taken decades to develop.

They say Europe's existing power market is functioning well, and has fostered years of lower power prices, supported renewable energy and helped avoid energy shortages.

Those countries support only limited tweaks, such as making it easier for consumers to choose between fluctuating and fixed-price power contracts.

'DECOUPLE' PRICES?
The Commission initially pitched the reform as a chance to "decouple" gas and power prices in Europe, suggesting a redesign of the current system of setting power prices. But EU officials say Brussels now appears to be leaning towards more modest changes.

A public consultation on the reforms last month steered clear of a deep energy market intervention. Rather, it suggested expanding Europe's use of long-term contracts, outlining a plan for more fixed-price contracts that provide power plants with a fixed price for their electricity, like CfDs or PPAs.

The Commission said this could be done by setting EU-wide rules for CfDs and letting countries voluntarily use them, or require new state-funded power plants to sign CfDs. The consultation mooted the idea of forcing existing power plants to sign CfDs, but said this could deter much-needed investments in renewable energy.

RISKS, REWARDS
Pro-reform countries like Spain say a revamped power market will bring down energy prices for consumers, by matching their bills more closely with the true cost of producing lower-carbon electricity.

France says the aim is to secure investment in low-carbon energy including renewables, and nuclear plants like those Paris plans to build. It also says lowering power prices should be part of Europe's response to massive industrial subsidies in the United States and China - by helping European firms keep a competitive edge.

But sceptics warn that drastic changes to the market could knock confidence among investors, putting at risk the hundreds of billions of euros in renewable energy investments the EU says are needed to quit Russian fossil fuels under its plan to dump Russian energy and meet climate goals.

Energy companies including Engie (ENGIE.PA), Orsted (ORSTED.CO) and Iberdrola (IBE.MC) have said making CfDs mandatory or imposing them retroactively on existing power plants could deter investment and trigger litigation from energy companies.

POLITICAL DEBATE
EU countries' energy ministers discuss the reforms on Monday, before formal negotiations begin.

The Commission, which drafts EU laws, plans to propose the reforms on Mar. 14. After that, EU countries and lawmakers negotiate the final law, which must win majority support from European Parliament lawmakers and a reinforced majority of at least 15 countries.

Negotiations on major EU legislation often take more than a year, but some countries are pushing for a fast-tracked deal. France wants the law to be finished this year.

That has already hit resistance from countries like Germany, highlighting a France-Germany tussle over the scope of reform as they say deeper changes cannot be rushed through, and they would need an "in-depth impact assessment" - something the Commission's upcoming proposal is not expected to include, because it has been drafted so quickly.

The timeline is further complicated by European Parliament elections in 2024. That has raised concerns in reform-hungry states that failure to strike a deal before the election could significantly delay the reforms, if negotiations have to pause until a new EU parliament is elected.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoff curbs wildfire risk amid high winds, triggering California outages across Northern California and Bay Area counties; grid safety measures, outage maps, campus closures, and restoration timelines guide residents and businesses.

Key Points

A preemptive outage program by PG&E to reduce wildfire ignition during extreme wind events in California.

✅ Cuts power during red flag, high wind, dry fuel conditions

✅ Targets Northern California, Bay Area counties at highest risk

✅ Restoration follows inspections, weather all-clear, hazard checks

California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) has cut off power supply to hundreds of thousands of residents in Northern and Central California as a precaution to possible breakout of wildfires, a move examined in reasons for shutdowns by industry observers.

PG&E confirmed that about 513,000 customers in many counties in Northern California, including Napa, Sierra, Sonoma and Yuba, were affected in the first phase of Public Safety Power Shutoff, a preemptive measure it took to prevent wildfires believed likely to be triggered by strong, dry winds.

The utility said the decision to shut off power was, amid ongoing debate over nuclear's status in California, "based on forecasts of dry, hot and windy weather including potential fire risk."

"This weather event will last through midday Thursday, with peak winds forecast from Wednesday morning through Thursday morning and reaching 60 mph (about 96 km per hour) to 70 mph (about 112 km per hour) at higher elevations," it said, while abroad National Grid warnings about short supply have highlighted parallel reliability concerns.

PG&E noted that about 234,000 residents in mostly counties of San Francisco Bay Area such as Alameda, Alpine, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara were impacted in the second phase of the power shutoff, as the state considers power plant closure delays with potential grid impacts, that began around noon in Wednesday.

The unprecedented power outages sweeping across Northern California has darkened homes and forced schools and business to close, even as the UK paused an emergency energy plan amid its own supply concerns.

University of California, Berkeley canceled all classes for Wednesday due to expected campus power loss over the next few days.

The university said it has received notice from PG&E, as China's power woes cloud U.S. solar supplies that could aid resilience, that "most of the core campus will be without power" possibly for 48 hours.

A freshman at California State University San Jose told Xinhua that their classes were canceled Wednesday as the campus was running out of power.

"I had to go home because even our dormitory went without electricity," the student added.

However, PG&E noted in an updated statement Wednesday night that only 4,000 customers would be affected in the third phase being considered for Kern County in Central California, compared to an earlier forecast of 43,000 people who would experience power outage.

The PG&E power shutoff was the largest preemptive measure ever taken to prevent wildfires in the state's history, and it comes as clean power grows while fossil declines across California's grid, highlighting broader transition challenges.

The San Francisco-based California utility was held responsible for poor management of its power lines that sparked fatal wildfires in Northern California and killed 86 people last year in what was called Camp Fire, the single-deadliest wildfire in California's history.

Several lawsuits and other requests for compensation from wildfire victims that amounted to billions of U.S. dollars forced the embattled the company to claim bankruptcy protection early this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Ecofiscal Commission EV Policy Shift examines carbon pricing limits, endorsing signal boosters like subsidies, EV incentives, and coal bans, amid advisory changes and public pushback, to accelerate emissions cuts beyond market-based taxes and regulations.

Key Points

An updated stance recognizing carbon pricing limits and backing EV incentives, subsidies, and rules to reduce emissions.

✅ Carbon pricing plus subsidies, EV incentives

✅ Advisory shift; Jack Mintz departs

✅ Focus on emissions cuts, coal power bans

Something strange happened at the Ecofiscal Commission recently. Earlier this month, the carbon-tax advocacy group featured on its website as one of its advisers the renowned Canadian economist (and FP Comment columnist) Jack M. Mintz. The other day, suddenly and without fanfare, Mintz was gone from the website, and the commission’s advisory board.

Advisers come and advisers go, of course, but it turns out there was an impetus for Mintz’s departure. The Ecofiscal Commission in its latest report, dropped just before Canada Day, seemingly shifted from its position that carbon prices were so excellent at mimicking market forces that the tax could repeal and replace virtually the entire vast expensive gallimaufry of subsidies, caps, rules and regulations that are costing Canada a fortune in business and bureaucrats. As some Ecofiscal commissioners wrote just a few months ago, policies that “dictate specific technologies or methods for reducing emissions constrain private choice and increase costs” and were a bad idea.

But, in this latest report, the commission is now musing about the benefits of carbon-tax “signal boosters”: that is, EV subsidies and rules to, for instance, get people to start buying electric vehicles (EVs), as well as bans on coal-fired power. “Even well designed carbon pricing can have limitations,” rationalized the commission. Mintz said he had “misgivings” about the change of tack. He decided it best if he focus his advisory energies elsewhere.

It’s hard to blame the commission for falling like everyone else for the electric-car mania that’s sweeping the nation and the world. Electric cars offer a sexiness that dreary old carbon taxes can never hope to match — especially in light of a new Angus Reid poll last week that showed the majority of Canadians now want governments to shelve any plans for carbon taxes.

So far, because nobody’s really driving these miracle machines, said mania has been limited to breathless news reports about how the electric-vehicle revolution is about to rock our world. EVs comprise just two-tenths of a per cent of all passenger vehicles in North America, despite the media’s endless hype and efforts of green-obsessed governments to cover much of the price tag, like Ontario’s $14,000 rebate for Tesla buyers. In Europe, where virtue-signalling urban environmentalism is the coolest, they’re not feeling the vehicular electricity much more: EVs account for barely one per cent of personal vehicles in France, the U.K. and Germany. When Hong Kong cancelled Tesla rebates in April, sales fell to zero.

Going by the ballyhoo, you’d think EVs were at an inflection point and an unstoppable juggernaut. But it’s one that has yet to even get started. In his 2011 State of the Union address, then president Barack Obama predicted one million electric cars on the road by 2015. Four years later, there wasn’t even a third that many. California offered so many different subsidies for electric vehicles that low-income families could get rebates of up to US$13,500, but it still isn’t even close to reaching its target of having zero-emission vehicles make up 15 per cent of California auto sales by 2025, being stuck at three per cent since 2014. Ontario’s Liberal government last year announced to much laughter its plan to ensure that every family would have at least one zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) by 2024, and Quebec made a plan to make ZEVs worth 15.5 per cent of sales by 2020, while Ottawa’s 2035 EV mandate attracts criticism too. Let’s see how that’s going: Currently, ZEVs make up 0.16 per cent of new vehicle sales in Ontario and 0.38 per cent in Quebec.

The latest sensational but bogus EV news out last week was France’s government announcing the “end of the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040,” and Volvo apparently announcing that as of 2019, all its models would be “electric.” Both announcements made international headlines. Both are baloney. France provided no actual details about this plan (will it literally become a crime to sell a gasoline car? Will hybrids, run partly on gasoline, be allowed?), but more importantly, as automotive writer Ed Wiseman pointed out in The Guardian, a lot will happen in technology and automotive use over the next 23 years that France has no way to predict, with changes in self-driving cars, public car-sharing and fuel technologies. Imagine making rules for today’s internet back in 1994.

Volvo, meanwhile, looked to be recycling and repackaging years-old news to seize on today’s infatuation with electric vehicles to burnish its now Chinese-owned brand. Since 2010, Volvo’s plan has been to focus on engines that were partly electric, with electric turbochargers, but still based on gasoline. Volvo doesn’t actually have an all-electric model, but the gasoline-swigging engine of its popular XC90 SUV is, partly, electrical. When Volvo said all its models would in two years be “electric,” it meant this kind of engine, not that it was phasing out the internal-combustion gasoline engine. But that is what it wanted reporters to think, and judging by all the massive and inaccurate coverage, it worked.

The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars. Tesla, whose founder’s self-promotion had made the niche carmaker magically more valuable than powerhouses like Ford and GM, haemorrhaged US$12 billion in market value last week after tepid sales figures brought some investors back to Earth, even as the company’s new Model 3 began rolling off the line.

Not helping is that environmental claims about environmental cars are falling apart. In June, Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found that electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fuel-powered electricity sources, emit 50-per-cent more carbon than do internal-combustion engines. Still, the electric-vehicle hype not only continues unabated, it gets bigger and louder every day. If some car company figures out how to harness it, we’d finally have a real automotive revolution on our hands.

Kevin Libin, Financial Post

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News