Wind incentives remain popular in Nebraska

EV Decarbonization Strategy weighs life-cycle emissions and climate targets, highlighting mode shift to public transit, cycling, and walking, grid decarbonization, renewable energy, and charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gases while reducing private car dependence.

Key Points

A plan to cut transport emissions by pairing EV adoption with mode shift, clean power, and less private car use.

✅ Prioritize mode shift: transit, cycling, and walking.

✅ Electrify remaining vehicles with clean, renewable power.

✅ Expand charging, improve batteries, and manage critical minerals.

California recently announced that it plans to ban the sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a move similar to a 2035 electric vehicle mandate seen elsewhere, Ontario has invested $500 million in the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and Tesla is quickly becoming the world's highest-valued car company.

It almost seems like owning an electric vehicle is a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it isn't, as a U of T study explains today. What we should also be focused on is whether anyone should use a private vehicle at all.
 
As a researcher in sustainable mobility, I know this answer is unsatisfying. But this is where my latest research has led.

Battery EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3 - the best selling EV in Canada in 2020 - have no tailpipe emissions. But they do have higher production and manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, and often run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels.

Almost 18 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada came from fossil fuels in 2019, and even as Canada's EV goals grow more ambitious today, the grid mix varies from zero in Quebec to 90 per cent in Alberta.
 
Researchers like me compare the greenhouse gas emissions of an alternative vehicle, such as an EV, with those of a conventional vehicle over a vehicle lifetime, an exercise known as a life-cycle assessment. For example, a Tesla Model 3 compared with a Toyota Corolla can provide up to 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled in Quebec, but no reductions in Alberta.

Hundreds of millions of new cars

To avoid extreme and irreversible impacts on ecosystems, communities and the overall global economy, we must keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C - and ideally 1.5 C - above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.

We can translate these climate change targets into actionable plans. First, we estimate greenhouse gas emissions budgets using energy and climate models for each sector of the economy and for each country. Then we simulate future emissions, taking alternative technologies into account, as well as future potential economic and societal developments.

I looked at the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, which adds up to about 260 million vehicles, while noting the potential for Canada-U.S. collaboration in this transition, to answer a simple question: Could the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector be brought in line with climate targets by replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs?

The results were shocking. Assuming no changes to travel behaviours and a decarbonization of 80 per cent of electricity, meeting a 2 C target could require up to 300 million EVs, or 90 per cent of the projected U.S. fleet, by 2050. That would require all new purchased vehicles to be electric from 2035 onwards.

To put that into perspective, there are currently 880,000 EVs in the U.S., or 0.3 per cent of the fleet. Even the most optimistic projections, despite hype about an electric-car revolution gaining steam, from the International Energy Agency suggest that the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent electrified by 2050.

Massive and rapid electrification

Still, 90 per cent is theoretically possible, isn't it? Probably, but is it desirable?

In order to hit that target, we'd need to very rapidly overcome all the challenges associated with EV adoption, such as range anxiety, the higher purchase cost and availability of charging infrastructure.
 
A rapid pace of electrification would severely challenge the electricity infrastructure and the supply chain of many critical materials for the batteries, such as lithium, manganese and cobalt. It would require vast capacity of renewable energy sources and transmission lines, widespread charging infrastructure, a co-ordination between two historically distinct sectors (electricity and transportation systems) and rapid innovations in electric battery technologies. I am not saying it's impossible, but I believe it's unlikely.

Read more: There aren't enough batteries to electrify all cars - focus on trucks and buses instead

So what? Shall we give up, accept our collective fate and stop our efforts at electrification?

On the contrary, I think we should re-examine our priorities and dare to ask an even more critical question: Do we need that many vehicles on the road?

Buses, trains and bikes

Simply put, there are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger transport: avoid the need to travel, shift the transportation modes or improve the technologies. EVs only tackle one side of the problem, the technological one.

And while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, including leading electric bus fleets in North America, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

If we truly want to solve our climate problems, we need to deploy EVs along with other measures, such as public transit and active mobility. This fact is critical, especially given the recent decreases in public transit ridership in the U.S., mostly due to increasing vehicle ownership, low gasoline prices and the advent of ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft)

Governments need to massively invest in public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure to make them larger, safer and more reliable, rather than expanding EV subsidies alone. And we need to reassess our transportation needs and priorities.

The road to decarbonization is long and winding. But if we are willing to get out of our cars and take a shortcut through the forest, we might get there a lot faster.

Author: Alexandre Milovanoff - Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

ERCOT Texas Fall Grid Forecast outlines ample power supply, planned maintenance outages, and grid reliability, citing PUC oversight and Gov. Abbott's remarks, with seasonal assessment noting mild demand yet climate risks and conservation alerts.

Key Points

ERCOT's seasonal outlook for Texas on fall power supply, outages, and reliability expectations under PUC oversight.

✅ Projects sufficient supply in October and November

✅ Many plants scheduled offline for maintenance

✅ Notes PUC oversight and Abbott's confidence

Gov. Greg Abbott said Tuesday that the Texas power grid is prepared for the fall months and referenced a new seasonal forecast by the state’s grid operator, which typically does not draw much attention to its fall and spring grid assessments because of the more mild temperatures during those seasons.

Tuesday’s new forecast by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas showed that there should be plenty of power supply to meet demand in October and November. It also showed that many Texas power plants are scheduled to be offline this fall for maintenance work. Texas power plants usually plan to go down in the fall and spring for repairs to improve reliability ahead of the more extreme temperatures in winter and summer, when Texans crank up their heat and air conditioning and raise demand for power.

ERCOT for at least a decade announced its seasonal forecasts, but did not do so on Tuesday. The grid operator stopped announcing the reports after the 2021 winter storm event. A spokesperson for the grid operator, which posted the report to its website midday without notifying the public or power industry stakeholders, said there were no plans to discuss the latest forecast and referred questions about it to the Public Utility Commission, which oversees ERCOT. Abbott appoints the board of the PUC.

Abbott on Tuesday expressed his confidence about the grid in a news release, which included photos of the governor sitting at a table with incoming ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas, outgoing interim CEO Brad Jones and Public Utility Commission Chair Peter Lake.

“The State of Texas continues to monitor the reliability of our electric grid, and I thank ERCOT and PUC for their hard work to implement bipartisan reforms we passed last year and for their proactive leadership to ensure our grid is stronger than ever before,” Abbott said in the release.

Abbott has not previously shared or called attention to ERCOT’s forecasts as he did on Tuesday.

Up for reelection this fall, Abbott has faced continued criticism, including from the Sierra Club over his handling of the 2021 deadly power grid disaster, when extended freezing temperatures shut down natural gas facilities and power plants, which rely on each other to keep electricity flowing. The resulting blackouts left millions of Texans without power for days in the cold, and hundreds of people died.

ERCOT’s forecasts for fall and spring are typically the least worrisome seasonal forecasts, energy experts said, because temperatures are usually milder in between summer and winter, even as ERCOT has issued an RFP to procure winter capacity to address shortages, so demand for power usually does not skyrocket like it does during extreme temperatures.

But they’ve warned that climate change could potentially lead to more extreme temperatures during times when Texas hasn’t experienced such weather in the past. For example, in early May six power plants unexpectedly broke down when a spring heat wave drove power demand up and highlighted broader heat-related blackout risks across the grid. ERCOT asked Texans to conserve electricity at home at the time.

Abbott released the seasonal report at a time when he has asserted unprecedented control over ERCOT. Although he had no formal role in ERCOT’s search for a new permanent CEO, he put a stranglehold on the process, The Texas Tribune previously reported. Since the winter storm, Abbott’s office has also dictated what information about the power grid ERCOT has released to the public.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Freedom Cannabis solar array powers an Acheson cannabis facility with 4,574 rooftop panels, a 1,830-kilowatt system by Enmax, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, lowering energy costs, and advancing renewable energy, sustainability, and operational efficiency in Edmonton.

Key Points

A 1,830-kW rooftop solar system with 4,574 panels, cutting GHG emissions and energy costs at the Acheson facility.

✅ 1,830-kW array offsets 1,000+ tonnes GHG annually

✅ Supplies ~8% of annual power; saves $200k-$300k per year

✅ 4,574 rooftop panels installed by Enmax in Acheson

Electricity consumption is one of the biggest barriers to going green in the cannabis industry, where the energy demands of cannabis cultivation often complicate sustainability, but an Edmonton-area pot producer has come up with a sunny solution.

Freedom Cannabis unveiled the largest rooftop solar system used by a cannabis facility in Canada at its 126,000-square foot Acheson location, 20 kilometres west of Edmonton, as solar power in Alberta continues to surge, on Tuesday.

The "state-of-the-art" 1,830-kilowatt solar array—made up of 4,574 panels—was supplied by Enmax and will offset more than 1,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year, reflecting how new Alberta solar facilities are undercutting natural gas on price, the company said.

The state-of-the-art solar array—made up of 4,574 panels—was supplied by Enmax and will offset more than 1,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions at Freedom Cannabis every year. Nov. 12, 2019. (Freedom Cannabis)

That will supply roughly eight per cent of the building's annual power consumption and reduce costs by $200,000 to $300,000 annually.

"This strategy will supplement our operating costs for power by up to eight to 10 per cent, so it is something that in time will save us costs on power requirements," said Troy Dezwart, co-founder of Freedom Cannabis.

Dezwart said sustainability was an important issue to the company from its outset, aligning with an Alberta renewable energy surge that is expected to power thousands of jobs.

"We're fortunate enough to be able to have these types of options and pursue them," said Dezwart.

The entire system cost Freedom Cannabis $2.6 million to build, but nearly a million of that came from a provincial rebate program that has since been cancelled by the UCP government, even as a federal green electricity deal with an Edmonton company signals ongoing support.

The company cited a 2017 report that found cannabis growers in the U.S. used enough electricity to power 1.7-million homes, and said cannabis-related power consumption is expected to increase by 1,250 per cent in Ontario over the next five years, even though Canadian solar demand has been lagging overall.

“It’s more important than ever for businesses to manage their energy footprint, and solar is an important part of that solution,” Enmax director Jason Atkinson, said. “This solar installation will help reduce operating costs and offset a significant portion of GHG emissions for decades to come.”

Freedom says it has other initiatives underway to reduce its footprint, in a region planning the Edmonton airport solar farm among other projects, including water remediation and offering 100 per cent recyclable cannabis packaging tins.

The company's first crops are expected to go to market in December.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Electricity Generation H1 2018 saw wind and solar gains but hydro declines, as natural gas led the grid mix and coal fell; renewables' share, GWh, emissions, and capacity additions shaped the power sector.

Key Points

It is the H1 2018 US power mix, where natural gas led, coal declined, and wind and solar grew while hydro fell.

✅ Natural gas reached 32% of generation, highest share

✅ Coal fell; renewables roughly tied nuclear at ~20%

✅ Wind and solar up; hydro output down vs 2017

To complement our revival of US electricity capacity reports, here’s a revival of our reports on US electricity generation.

As with the fresh new capacity report, things are not looking too bright when it comes to electricity generation. There’s still a lot of grey — in the bar charts below, in the skies near fossil fuel power plants, and in the human and planetary outlook based on how slowly we are cutting fossil fuel electricity generation.

As you can see in the charts above, wind and solar energy generation increased notably from the first half of 2017 to the first half of 2018, and the EIA expected larger summer solar and wind generation in subsequent months, reinforcing that momentum.

A large positive when it comes to the environment and human health is that coal generation dropped a great deal year over year — by even more than renewables increased, though the EIA later noted an increase in coal-fired generation in a subsequent year, complicating the trend. However, on the down side, natural gas soared as it became the #1 source of electricity generation in the United States (32% of US electricity). Furthermore, coal was still solidly in the #2 position (27% of US electricity). Renewables and nuclear were essentially in a tie at 19.8% of generation, with renewables just a tad above nuclear.

Actually, combined with an increase in nuclear power generation, natural gas electricity production increased so much that the renewable energy share of electricity generation actually dropped in the first half of 2018 versus the first half of 2017, even amid declining electricity use in some periods. It was 19.8% this year and 20% last year.

Again, solar and wind saw a significant growth in its market share, from 9% to 9.9%, but hydro brought the whole category down due to a decrease from 9% to 8%.

The visuals above are probably the best way to examine it all. The H1 2018 chart was still dominated by fossil fuels, which together accounted for approximately 60% of electricity generation, even though by 2021 non-fossil sources supplied about 40% of U.S. electricity, highlighting the longer-term shift. In H1 2017, the figure was 59.7%. Furthermore, if you switch to the “Change H1 2018 vs H1 2017 (GWh)” chart, you can watch a giant grey bar representing natural gas take over the top of the chart. It almost looks like it’s part of the border of the chart. The biggest glimmer of positivity in that chart is seeing the decline in coal at the bottom.

What will the second half of the year bring? Well, the gigantic US electricity generation market shifts slowly, even as monthly figures can swing, as January generation jumped 9.3% year over year according to the EIA, reminding us about volatility. There is so much base capacity, and power plants last so long, that it takes a special kind of magic to create a rapid transition to renewable energy. As you know from reading this quarter’s US renewable energy capacity report, only 43% of new US power capacity in the first half of the year was from renewables. The majority of it was from natural gas. Along with other portions of the calculation, that means that electricity generation from natural gas is likely to increase more than electricity generation from renewables.

Jump into the numbers below and let us know if you have any more thoughts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News