New PSC to tackle FPL issues

U.S.-Canada Energy and Minerals Partnership strengthens energy security, critical minerals supply chains, and climate objectives with clean oil and gas, EV batteries, methane reductions, cross-border grid reliability, and allied trade, countering Russia and China dependencies.

Key Points

A North American alliance to secure energy, refine critical minerals, cut emissions, and fortify supply chains.

✅ Integrates oil, gas, and electricity trade for reliability

✅ Builds EV battery and critical minerals processing capacity

✅ Reduces methane, diversifies away from Russia and China

Today, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivered the following remarks during a full committee hearing to examine ways to strengthen the energy and mineral partnership between the U.S. and Canada to address energy security and climate objectives.

The hearing also featured testimony from the Honorable Jason Kenney (Premier, Alberta, Canada), the Honorable Nathalie Camden (Associate Deputy Minister of Mines, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resource, Québec, Canada), the Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister, Natural Resources Canada) and Mr. Francis Bradley (President and CEO, Electricity Canada). Click here to read their testimony.

Chairman Manchin’s remarks can be viewed as prepared here or read below:

Today we’re welcoming our friends from the North, from Canada, to continue this committee’s very important conversation about how we pursue two critical goals – ensuring energy security and addressing climate change.

These two goals aren’t mutually exclusive, and it’s imperative that we address both.

We all agree that Putin has used Russia’s oil and gas resources as a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the Ukrainian people and on Europe.

And other energy-rich autocracies are taking note. We’d be fools to think Xi Jinping won’t consider using a similar playbook, leveraging China’s control over global critical minerals supply chains.

But Putin’s aggression is bringing the free world closer together, setting the stage for a new alliance around energy, minerals, and climate.
Building this alliance should start here in North America. And that’s why I’m excited to hear today about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership between the U.S. and Canada.

I recently had the privilege of being hosted in Alberta by Premier Kenney, where I spent two days getting a better understanding of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnership through meetings with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the federal government, and tribal and industry partners.

Canadians and Americans share a deep history and are natural partners, sharing the longest land border on the planet.

Our people fought side-by-side in two world wars. In fact, some of the uranium used by the Manhattan Project and broader nuclear innovation was mined in Canada’s Northwest Territories and refined in Ontario.

We have cultivated a strong manufacturing partnership, particularly in the automotive industry, with Canada today being our biggest export market for vehicles. Cars assembled in Canada contain, on average, more than 50% of U.S. value and parts.

Today we also trade over 58 terawatt hours of electricity, including green power from Canada across the border, 2.4 billion barrels of petroleum products, and 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year.

In fact, energy alone represents $120 billion of the annual trade between our countries. Across all sectors the U.S. and Canada trade more than $2 billion per day.
There is no better symbol of our energy relationship than our interconnected power grid and evolving clean grids that are seamless and integral for the reliable and affordable electricity citizens and industries in both our countries depend on.

And we’re here for each other during times of need. Electricity workers from both the U.S. and Canada regularly cross the border after extreme weather events to help get the power back on.

Canada has ramped up oil exports to the U.S. to offset Russian crude after members of our committee led legislation to cut off the energy purchases fueling Putin’s war machine.

Canada is also a leading supplier of uranium and critical minerals to the U.S., including those used in advanced batteries—such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
The U.S-Canada energy partnership is strong, but also not without its challenges, including tariff threats that affect projects on both sides. I’ve not been shy in expressing my frustration that the Biden administration cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline.

In light of Putin’s war in Ukraine and the global energy price surge, I think a lot of us wish that project had moved forward.

But to be clear, I’m not holding this hearing to re-litigate the past. We are here to advance a stronger and cleaner U.S.-Canada energy partnership for the future.
Our allies and trading partners in Europe are begging for North American oil and gas to offset their reliance on Russia.

There is no reason whatsoever we shouldn’t be able to fill that void, and do it cleaner than the alternatives.

That’s because American oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced in Russia – and certainly in Iran and Venezuela. We can do better, and learn from our Canadian neighbors.

On average, Canada produces oil with 37% lower methane emissions than the U.S., and the Canadian federal government has set even more aggressive methane reduction targets.

That’s what I mean by climate and security not being mutually exclusive – replacing Russian product has the added benefit of reducing the emissions profile of the energy Europe needs today.

According to the International Energy Agency, stationary and electric vehicle batteries will account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean energy technologies over the next twenty years.

Unfortunately, China controls 80% of the world’s battery material processing, 60% of the world’s cathode production, 80% of the world’s anode production, and 75% of the world’s lithium ion battery cell production. They’ve cornered the market.

I also strongly believe we need to be taking national energy security into account as we invest in climate solutions.

It makes no sense whatsoever for us to so heavily invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution when that means increasing our reliance on China, because right now we’re not simultaneously increasing our mining, processing, and recycling capacity at the same rate in the United States.

The Canadians are ahead of us on critical minerals refining and processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they’re able to responsibly permit these activities in timelines that blow ours out of the water.

I’m sure our Canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me be clear, the United States also needs to contribute our part to a North American minerals alliance.

So I’m interested in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw minerals to move across our borders for processing and manufacturing in both of our countries, and how B.C. critical minerals decisions may affect that.

I believe there is much we can collaborate on with Canada to create a powerful North American critical minerals supply chain instead of increasing China’s geopolitical leverage.

During this time when the U.S., Canada, and our allies and friends are threatened both by dictators weaponizing energy and by intense politicization over climate issues, we must work together to chart a responsible path forward that will ensure security and unlock prosperity for our nations.

We are the superpower of the world, and blessed with abundant energy and minerals resources. We cannot just sit back and let other countries fill the void and find ourselves in a more dire situation in the years ahead.

We must be leaning into the responsible production of all the energy sources we’re going to need, and strengthening strategic partnerships – building a North American Energy Alliance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. EV Market Share Dip Q1 2024 reflects slower BEV adoption, rising PHEV demand, affordability concerns, charging infrastructure gaps, tax credit shifts, range anxiety, and automaker strategy adjustments across the electric vehicle market.

Key Points

Q1 2024 EV and hybrid share slipped as BEV sales lag, PHEVs rise, and affordability and charging concerns temper demand.

✅ BEV share fell to 7.0% as affordable models remain limited

✅ PHEV sales rose 50% YoY, easing range anxiety concerns

✅ Policy shifts and charging gaps weigh on consumer adoption

The U.S. electric vehicle (EV) market, once a beacon of unbridled growth, appears to be experiencing a course correction. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reveals that the combined market share of electric vehicles (battery electric vehicles, or BEVs) and hybrids dipped slightly in the first quarter of 2024, marking the first decline since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as EU EV share rose during lockdowns in 2020.

This news comes as a surprise to many analysts who predicted continued exponential growth for the EV market. While overall sales of electric vehicles surged into 2024 and did increase by 7% compared to Q1 2023, this growth wasn't enough to keep pace with the overall rise in vehicle sales. The result: a decline in market share from 18.8% in Q4 2023 to 18.0% in Q1 2024.

Several factors may be contributing to this shift. One potential culprit is a slowdown in battery electric vehicle sales. BEVs saw their share of the market dip from 8.1% to 7.0% in the same period. This could be attributed to a lack of readily available affordable options, with many popular EV models still commanding premium prices and concerns that EV supply may miss demand in the near term.

Another factor could be the rising interest in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). PHEV sales witnessed a significant jump of 50% year-over-year, reflecting how gas-electric hybrids are getting a boost from major automakers, potentially indicating a consumer preference for vehicles that offer both electric and gasoline powertrain options, addressing concerns about range anxiety often associated with BEVs.

Industry experts offer mixed interpretations of this data. Some downplay the significance of the dip, attributing it to a temporary blip, even though EVs remain behind gas cars in total sales. They point to the ongoing commitment from major automakers to invest in EV production and the potential for new, more affordable models to hit the market soon.

Others express more concern, citing Europe's recent EV slump and suggesting this might be a sign of maturing consumer preferences. They argue that simply increasing the number of EVs on the market might not be enough. Automakers need to address issues like affordability, charging infrastructure, and range anxiety to maintain momentum.

The role of government incentives also remains a question mark. The federal tax credit for electric vehicles is currently set to phase out gradually, potentially impacting consumer purchasing decisions in the future. Continued government support, through incentives or infrastructure development, could be crucial in maintaining consumer interest.

The coming quarters will be crucial in determining the long-term trajectory of the U.S. EV market, especially after the global electric car market's rapid expansion in recent years. Whether this is a temporary setback or a more lasting trend remains to be seen. Addressing consumer concerns, ensuring a diverse range of affordable EV options, and continued government support will all be essential in ensuring the continued growth of this critical sector.

This development also presents an opportunity for traditional automakers. By capitalizing on the growing PHEV market and addressing consumer concerns about affordability and range anxiety, they can carve out a strong position in the evolving automotive landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Methane Hydrate CO2 Sequestration uses carbon capture and nitrogen injection to swap gases in seafloor hydrates along the Gulf of Mexico, releasing methane for electricity while storing CO2, according to new simulation research.

Key Points

A method injecting CO2 and nitrogen into hydrates to store CO2 while releasing methane for power.

✅ Nitrogen aids CO2-methane swap in hydrate cages, speeding sequestration

✅ Gulf Coast proximity to emitters lowers transport and power costs

✅ Revenue from methane electricity could offset carbon capture

The world is quickly realizing it may need to actively pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stave off the ill effects of climate change. Scientists and engineers have proposed various carbon capture techniques, but most would be extremely expensive—without generating any revenue. No one wants to foot the bill.

One method explored in the past decade might now be a step closer to becoming practical, as a result of a new computer simulation study. The process would involve pumping airborne CO2 down into methane hydrates—large deposits of icy water and methane right under the seafloor, beneath water 500 to 1,000 feet deep—where the gas would be permanently stored, or sequestered. The incoming CO2 would push out the methane, which would be piped to the surface and burned to generate electricity, whether sold locally or via exporters like Hydro-Que9bec to help defray costs, to power the sequestration operation or to bring in revenue to pay for it.

Many methane hydrate deposits exist along the Gulf of Mexico shore and other coastlines. Large power plants and industrial facilities that emit CO2 also line the Gulf Coast, where EPA power plant rules could shape deployment, so one option would be to capture the gas directly from nearby smokestacks, keeping it out of the atmosphere to begin with. And the plants and industries themselves could provide a ready market for the electricity generated.

A methane hydrate is a deposit of frozen, latticelike water molecules. The loose network has many empty, molecular-size pores, or “cages,” that can trap methane molecules rising through cracks in the rock below. The computer simulation shows that pushing out the methane with CO2 is greatly enhanced if a high concentration of nitrogen is also injected, and that the gas swap is a two-step process. (Nitrogen is readily available anywhere, because it makes up 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere.) In one step the nitrogen enters the cages; this destabilizes the trapped methane, which escapes the cages. In a separate step, the nitrogen helps CO2 crystallize in the emptied cages. The disturbed system “tries to reach a new equilibrium; the balance goes to more CO2 and less methane,” says Kris Darnell, who led the study, published June 27 in the journal Water Resources Research. Darnell recently joined the petroleum engineering software company Novi Labs as a data scientist, after receiving his Ph.D. in geoscience from the University of Texas, where the study was done.

A group of labs, universities and companies had tested the technique in a limited feasibility trial in 2012 on Alaska’s North Slope, where methane hydrates form in sandstone under deep permafrost. They sent CO2 and nitrogen down a pipe into the hydrate. Some CO2 ended up being stored, and some methane was released up the same pipe. That is as far as the experiment was intended to go. “It’s good that Kris [Darnell] could make headway” from that experience, says Ray Boswell at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, who was one of the Alaska experiment leaders but was not involved in the new study. The new simulation also showed that the swap of CO2 for methane is likely to be much more extensive—and to happen quicker—if CO2 enters at one end of a hydrate deposit and methane is collected at a distant end.

The technique is somewhat similar in concept to one investigated in the early 2010s by Steven Bryant and others at the University of Texas. In addition to numerous methane hydrate deposits, the Gulf Coast has large pools of hot, salty brine in sedimentary rock under the coastline. In this system, pumps would send CO2 down into one end of a deposit, which would force brine into a pipe that is placed at the other end and leads back to the surface. There the hot brine would flow through a heat exchanger, where heat could be extracted and used for industrial processes or to generate electricity, supporting projects such as electrified LNG in some markets. The upwelling brine also contains some methane that could be siphoned off and burned. The CO2 dissolves into the underground brine, becomes dense and sinks further belowground, where it theoretically remains.

Either system faces big practical challenges, and building shared CO2 storage hubs to aggregate captured gas is still evolving. One is creating a concentrated flow of CO2; the gas makes up only .04 percent of air, and roughly 10 percent of the smokestack emission from a typical power plant or industrial facility. If an efficient methane hydrate or brine system requires an input that is 90 percent CO2, for example, concentrating the gas will require an enormous amount of energy—making the process very expensive. “But if you only need a 50 percent concentration, that could be more attractive,” says Bryant, who is now a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Calgary. “You have to reduce the [CO2] capture cost.”

Another major challenge for the methane hydrate approach is how to collect the freed methane, which could simply seep out of the deposit through numerous cracks and in all directions. “What kind of well [and pipe] structure would you use to grab it?” Bryant asks.

Given these realities, there is little economic incentive today to use methane hydrates for sequestering CO2. But as concentrations rise in the atmosphere and the planet warms further, and as calls for an electric planet intensify, systems that could capture the gas and also provide energy or revenue to run the process might become more viable than techniques that simply pull CO2 from the air and lock it away, offering nothing in return.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California Public Safety Power Shutoffs highlight wildfire prevention as PG&E outages disrupt schools, businesses, and rural communities, driving generator use, economic hardship, and emergency preparedness across Northern California during high-wind events.

Key Points

Utility outages to reduce wildfire risk during extreme winds, impacting homes and businesses in high-risk California.

✅ PG&E cuts power during high winds to prevent wildfires

✅ Costs rise for generators, fuel, batteries, and spoiled food

✅ Rural, low-income communities face greater economic losses

The intentional blackout by California’s largest utility this week put Forest Jones out of work and his son out of school. On Friday morning Mr. Jones, a handyman and single father, sat in his apartment above a tattoo parlor waiting for the power to come back on and for school to reopen.

“I’ll probably lose $400 or $500 dollars because of this,” said Mr. Jones, who lives in the town of Paradise, which was razed by fire last year and is slowly rebuilding. “Things have been really tough up here.”

Millions of people were affected by the blackout, which spanned the outskirts of Silicon Valley to the forests of Humboldt County near the Oregon border. But the outage, which the power company said was necessary to reduce wildfire risk across the region, also drew a line between those who were merely inconvenienced and those who faced a major financial hardship.

To have the lights on, the television running and kitchen appliances humming is often taken for granted in America, even as U.S. grid during coronavirus questions persisted. During California’s blackout it became an economic privilege.

The economic impacts of the shut-off were especially acute in rural, northern towns like Paradise, where incomes are a fraction of those in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Both wealthy and poorer areas were affected by the blackout but interviews across the state suggested that being forced off the grid disproportionately hurt the less affluent. One family in Humboldt County said they had spent $150 on batteries and water alone during the shutdown.

“To be prepared costs money,” Sue Warhaftig, a massage therapist who lives in Mill Valley, a wealthy suburb across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. Ms. Warhaftig spent around two days without electricity but said she had been spared from significant sacrifices during the blackout.

She invested in a generator to keep the refrigerator running and to provide some light. She cooked in the family’s Volkswagen camper van in her driveway. At night she watched Netflix on her phone, which she was able to charge with the generator. Her husband, a businessman, is in London on a work trip. Her two sons, both grown, live in Southern California and Seattle.

“We were inconvenienced but life wasn’t interrupted,” Ms. Warhaftig said. “But so many people’s lives were.

Pacific Gas & Electric restored power to large sections of Northern California on Friday, including Paradise, where the electricity came back on in the afternoon. But hundreds of thousands of people in other areas remained in the dark. The carcasses of burned cars still littered the landscape around Paradise, where 86 people died in the Camp Fire last year, some of them while trying to escape.

Officials at power company said that by Saturday they hoped to have restored power to 98 percent of the customers who were affected.

The same dangerous winds that spurred the shut-off in Northern California have put firefighters to work in the south. The authorities in Los Angeles County ordered the evacuation of nearly 100,000 people on Friday as the Saddleridge Fire burned nearly 5,000 acres and destroyed 25 structures. The Sandalwood Fire, which ignited Thursday in Riverside County, had spread to more than 800 acres and destroyed 74 structures by Friday afternoon.

While this week’s outage was the first time many customers in Northern California experienced a deliberate power shut-off, residents in and around Paradise have had their power cut four times in recent months, residents say.

Many use a generator, but running one has become increasingly expensive with gasoline now at more than $4 a gallon in California.

On Friday, Dennis and Viola Timmer drove up the hill to their home in Magalia, a town adjacent to Paradise, loaded with $102 dollars of gasoline for their generators. It was their second gasoline run since the power went out Tuesday night.

The couple, retired and on a fixed income after Mr. Timmer’s time in the Navy and in construction, said the power outage had severely limited their ability to do essential tasks like cooking, or to leave the house.

“You know what it feels like? You’re in jail,” said Ms. Timmer, 72. “You can’t go anywhere with the generators running.”

Since the generators are not powerful enough to run heat or air conditioning, the couple slept in their den with an electric space heater.

“It’s really difficult because you don’t have a normal life,” Ms. Timmer said. “You’re trying to survive.”

To be sure, the shutdown has affected many people regardless of economic status, and similar disruptions abroad, like a London power outage that disrupted routines, show how widespread such challenges can be. The areas without power were as diverse as the wealthy suburbs of Silicon Valley, the old Gold Rush towns of the Sierra Nevada, the East Bay of San Francisco and the seaside city of Arcata.

Ms. Cahn’s cellphone ran out of power during the blackout and even when she managed to recharge it in her car cell service was spotty, as it was in many areas hit by the blackout.

Accustomed to staying warm at night with an electric blanket, Ms. Cahn slept under a stack of four blankets.

“I’m doing what I have to do which is not doing very much,” she said.

Further south in Marin City, Chanay Jackson stood surrounded by fumes from generators still powering parts of the city.

She said that food stamps were issued on the first of the month and that many residents who had to throw away food were out of luck.

“They’re not going to issue more food stamps just because the power went out,” Ms. Jackson said. “So they’re just screwed until next month.”

Strong winds have many times in the past caused power lines to come in contact with vegetation, igniting fires that are then propelled by the gusts, and hurricanes elsewhere have crippled infrastructure with Louisiana grid rebuild after Laura according to state officials. This was the case with the Camp Fire.

Since higher elevations had more extreme winds many of the neighborhoods where power was turned off this week were in hills and canyons, including in the Sierra Nevada.

The shut-off, which by one estimate affected a total of 2.5 million people, has come under strong criticism by residents and politicians, and warnings from Cal ISO about rolling blackouts as the power grid strained. The company’s website crashed just as customers sought information about the outage. Gov. Gavin Newsom called it unacceptable. But his comments were nuanced, criticizing the way the shut-off was handled, not the rationale for it. Mr. Newsom and others said the ravages of the Camp Fire demanded preventive action to prevent a reoccurrence.

Yet the calculus of trying to avoid deadly fires by shutting off power will continue to be debated as California enters its peak wildfire season, even as electricity reliability during COVID-19 was generally maintained for most consumers.

In the city of Grass Valley, Matthew Gottschalk said he and his wife realized that a generator was essential when they calculated that they had around $500 worth of food in their fridge.

“I don’t know what we would have done,” said Mr. Gottschalk, whose power went out Tuesday night.

His neighbors are filling coolers with ice. Everyone is hoping the power will come back on soon.

“Ice is going to run out and gas is going to run out,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit alleges utility negligence, inadequate infrastructure maintenance, and faulty transmission lines, as victims seek compensation. Regulators investigate the blaze, echoing class actions after Victoria's Black Saturday mega-fires and utility oversight failures.

Key Points

PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit alleges utility negligence and power line faults, seeking victim compensation amid investigations.

✅ Alleged failure to maintain transmission infrastructure

✅ Spark reports and regulator filings before blaze erupted

✅ Class action parallels with Australia's Black Saturday

Victims of California's most destructive wildfire have filed a lawsuit accusing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. of causing the massive blaze, a move that follows the utility's 2018 Camp Fire guilty plea in a separate case.

The suit filed on Tuesday in state court in California accuses the utility of failing to maintain its infrastructure and properly inspect and manage its power transmission lines, amid prior reports that power lines may have sparked fires in California.

The utility's president said earlier the company doesn't know what caused the fire, but is cooperating with the investigation by state agencies, and other utilities such as Southern California Edison have faced wildfire lawsuits in California.

PG&E told state regulators last week that it experienced a problem with a transmission line in the area of the fire just before the blaze erupted.

A landowner near where the blaze began said PG&E notified her the day before the wildfire that crews needed to come onto her property because some wires were sparking, and the company later promoted its wildfire assistance program for victims seeking aid.

A massive class action after Australia's last mega-fire, Victoria's Black Saturday in 2009, saw $688.5 million paid in compensation to thousands of claimants affected by the Kilmore-Kinglake and Murrindindi-Marysville fires, partly by electricity company SP Ausnet, and partly by government agencies, while in California PG&E's bankruptcy plan won support from wildfire victims addressing compensation claims.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News