Green technology stifled by funding woes: experts

India Renewable Energy Surge 2024 signals coal's decline as solar and wind capacity soar, aided by policy incentives, grid upgrades, energy storage, and falling costs, accelerating decarbonization and clean power growth.

Key Points

Q1 2024 saw renewables outpace coal in new capacity, led by cheaper solar, wind, policy support, and storage.

✅ 71.5% of new Q1 capacity came from renewables

✅ Solar and wind expand on falling costs and faster permitting

✅ Grid integration needs storage, skills, and just transition

In a landmark shift for the world's second-most populous nation, coal has finally been dethroned as the king of India's energy supply. The first quarter of 2024 saw a historic surge in renewable energy capacity, particularly on-grid solar development across states, pushing its share of power generation past 71.5%. This remarkable feat marks a turning point in India's journey towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future.

For decades, coal has been the backbone of India's power sector, fueling rapid economic growth but also leading to concerning levels of air pollution. However, a confluence of factors has driven this dramatic shift, even as coal generation surges create short-term fluctuations in the mix. Firstly, the cost of solar and wind power has plummeted in recent years, making them increasingly competitive with coal. Secondly, the Indian government has set ambitious renewable energy targets, aiming for 50% of cumulative power generation capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. Thirdly, growing public awareness about the environmental impact of coal has spurred a demand for cleaner alternatives.

This surge in renewables is not just about replacing coal. The first quarter of 2024 witnessed a record-breaking addition of 13,669 megawatts (MW) of power generation capacity, with renewables accounting for a staggering 71.5% of that figure, aligning with 30% global renewable electricity milestones seen worldwide. This rapid expansion is driven by factors like falling equipment costs, streamlined permitting processes, and attractive government incentives. Solar and wind energy are leading the charge, and in other major markets renewables are projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. generation in the near term, with large-scale solar farms and wind turbine installations dotting the Indian landscape.

The transition away from coal presents both opportunities and challenges. On the positive side, cleaner air will lead to significant health benefits for millions of Indians. Additionally, India can establish itself as a global leader in the renewable energy sector, attracting investments and creating new jobs, echoing how China's solar PV expansion reshaped markets in the previous decade. However, challenges remain. Integrating such a large amount of variable renewable energy sources like solar and wind into the grid requires robust energy storage solutions. Furthermore, millions of jobs in the coal sector need to be transitioned to new opportunities in the green economy.

Despite these challenges, India's move towards renewables is a significant development with global implications, as U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, underscoring broader momentum. It demonstrates the growing viability of clean energy solutions and paves the way for other developing nations to follow suit. India's success story can inspire a global shift towards a more sustainable energy future, one powered by the sun, wind, and other renewable resources.

Looking ahead, continued government support, technological advancements, and innovative financing mechanisms will be crucial for sustaining India's renewable energy momentum. The future of India's energy sector is undoubtedly bright, fueled by the clean and abundant power of the sun and the wind, as wind and solar surpassed coal in the U.S. in recent comparisons. The world will be watching closely to see if India can successfully navigate this energy transition, setting an example for other nations struggling to balance development with environmental responsibility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Site C Dam Court Ruling could halt hydroelectric project near Fort St. John, as First Nations cite Treaty 8 rights in B.C. Supreme Court against BC Hydro, reservoir flooding, and Peace River Valley impacts.

Key Points

Potential B.C. Supreme Court stop to Site C, grounded in Treaty 8 rights claims by First Nations against BC Hydro.

✅ Trial expected in 2022 before planned 2023 reservoir flooding

✅ Treaty 8 rights and Peace River Valley impacts at issue

✅ Talks ongoing among B.C., BC Hydro, West Moberly, Prophet River

The Site C dam could still be stopped by an "eleventh hour" court ruling, according to the lawyer representing B.C. First Nations opposed to the massive hydroelectric project near Fort St. John.

The B.C. government, BC Hydro and West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations were in B.C. Supreme Court Feb. 28 to set a 120-day trial, expected to begin in March 2022.

That date means a ruling would come prior to the scheduled flooding of the dam's reservoir area in 2023 said Tim Thielmann, legal counsel for the West Moberly First Nation.

"The court has left itself the opportunity for an eleventh hour cancellation of the project," he said.

Construction continues

At the core of the case is First Nations arguments the multi-billion dollar BC Hydro dam will cause irreparable harm to its territory and way of life — even as drought strains hydro production elsewhere — rights protected under Treaty 8.

The West Moberly have previously warned it believes Site C constitutes a $1 billion treaty violation.

​In 2018, the First Nations lost a bid for an injunction order, meaning construction of the dam is continuing despite warnings that delays could cost $600 million to the project.

First Nations 'deeply frustrated' after B.C. Supreme Court dismisses Site C injunction

The judge in the case said the ruling was made because if the First Nations lost the challenge, the project would be needlessly put into disarray.

Province, Nations enter talks to avoid litigation

Also this week the B.C. government announced it has entered into talks with BC Hydro and the two First Nations in an attempt to avoid the court process altogether, amid broader energy debates such as bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap for climate goals.

Thielmann said the details of the talk are confidential, but his clients are willing to pursue all avenues in order to stop the dam from moving forward.

"They are trying to save what little is left [of the Peace River Valley]", he said.

Tim Thielmann of Sage Legal is representing the West Moberly First Nation in its lawsuit aimed at stopping Site C. (Sage Legal)

In the meantime, the parties will continue to prepare for the 2022 court dates.

The latest figure on the cost of the dam is $10.7 billion, in a billions-over-budget project that the premier says will proceed. When complete, it would power the equivalent of 450,000 homes a year, though use of Site C's electricity remains a point of debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Energy equity in utility regulation prioritizes fair rates, clean energy access, and DERs, addressing fixed charges and energy burdens on low-income households through stakeholder engagement and public utility commission reforms.

Key Points

Fairly allocates clean energy benefits and rate burdens, ensuring access and protections for low-income households.

✅ Reduces fixed charges that burden low-income households

✅ Funds community participation in utility proceedings

✅ Prioritizes DERs, energy efficiency, and solar in impacted areas

By Kiran Julin

Pouring over the line items on your monthly electricity bill may not sound like an enticing way to spend an afternoon, but the way electricity bills are structured has a significant impact on equitable energy access and distribution. For example, fixed fees can have a disproportionate impact on low-income households. And combined with other factors, low-income households and households of color are far more likely to report losing home heating service, with evidence from pandemic power shut-offs highlighting these disparities, according to recent federal data.

Advancing Equity in Utility Regulation, a new report published by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), makes a unifying case that utilities, regulators, and stakeholders need to prioritize energy equity in the deployment of clean energy technologies and resources, aligning with a people-and-planet electricity future envisioned by advocacy groups. Equity in this context is the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of energy production and consumption. The report outlines systemic changes needed to advance equity in electric utility regulation by providing perspectives from four organizations — Portland General Electric, a utility company; the National Consumer Law Center, a consumer advocacy organization; and the Partnership for Southern Equity and the Center for Biological Diversity, social justice and environmental organizations.
 
“While government and ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs have made strides towards equity by enabling low-income households to access energy-efficiency measures, that has not yet extended in a major way to other clean-energy technologies,” said Lisa Schwartz, a manager and strategic advisor at Berkeley Lab and technical editor of the report. “States and utilities can take the lead to make sure the clean-energy transition does not leave behind low-income households and communities of color. Decarbonization and energy equity goals are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, they need to go hand-in-hand.”

Energy bills and electricity rates are governed by state laws and utility regulators, whose mission is to ensure that utility services are reliable, safe, and fairly priced. Public utility commissions also are increasingly recognizing equity as an important goal, tool, and metric, and some customers face major changes to electric bills as reforms advance. While states can use existing authorities to advance equity in their decision-making, several, including Illinois, Maine, Oregon, and Washington, have enacted legislation over the last couple of years to more explicitly require utility regulators to consider equity.

“The infrastructure investments that utility companies make today, and regulator decisions about what goes into electricity bills, including new rate design steps that shape customer costs, will have significant impacts for decades to come,” Schwartz said.

Solutions recommended in the report include considering energy justice goals when determining the “public interest” in regulatory decisions, allocating funding for energy justice organizations to participate in utility proceedings, supporting utility programs that increase deployment of energy efficiency and solar for low-income households, and accounting for energy inequities and access in designing electricity rates, while examining future utility revenue models as technologies evolve.

The report is part of the Future of Electric Utility Regulation series that started in 2015, led by Berkeley Lab and funded by DOE, to encourage informed discussion and debate on utility trends and tackling the toughest issues related to state electric utility regulation. An advisory group of utilities, public utility commissioners, consumer advocates, environmental and social justice organizations, and other experts provides guidance.

Taking stock of past and current energy inequities

One focus of the report is electricity bills. In addition to charges based on usage, electricity bills usually also have a fixed basic customer charge, which is the minimum amount a household has to pay every month to access electricity. The fixed charge varies widely, from $5 to more than $20. In recent years, utility companies have sought sizable increases in this charge to cover more costs, amid rising electricity prices in some markets.

This fixed charge means that no matter what a household does to use energy more efficiently or to conserve energy, there is always a minimum cost. Moreover, low-income households often live in older, poorly insulated housing. Current levels of public and utility funding for energy-efficiency programs fall far short of the need. The combined result is that the energy burden – or percent of income needed to keep the lights on and their homes at a healthy temperature – is far greater for lower-income households.

“While all households require basic lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration, low-income households must devote a greater proportion of income to maintain basic service,” explained John Howat and Jenifer Bosco from the National Consumer Law Center and co-authors of Berkeley Lab’s report. Their analysis of data from the most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey shows households with income less than $20,000 reported losing home heating service at a pace more than five times higher than households with income over $80,000. Households of color were far more likely than those with a white householder to report loss of heating service. In addition, low-income households and households of color are more likely to have to choose between paying their energy bill or paying for other necessities, such as healthcare or food.

Based on the most recent data (2015) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), households with income less than $20,000 reported losing home heating service at a rate more than five times higher than households with income over $80,000. Households of color were far more likely than those with a white householder to report loss of heating service. Click on chart for larger view. (Credit: John Howat/National Consumer Law Center, using EIA data)

Moreover, while many of the infrastructure investment decisions that utilities make, such as whether and where to build a new power plant, often have long-term environmental and health consequences, impacted communities often are not at the table. “Despite bearing an inequitable proportion of the negative impacts of environmental injustices related to fossil fuel-based energy production and climate change, marginalized communities remain virtually unrepresented in the energy planning and decision-making processes that drive energy production, distribution, and regulation,” wrote Chandra Farley, CEO of ReSolve and a co-author of the report.

Engaging impacted communities
Each of the perspectives in the report identify a need for meaningful engagement of underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in energy planning and utility decision-making. “Connecting the dots between energy, racial injustice, economic disinvestment, health disparities, and other associated equity challenges becomes a clarion call for communities that are being completely left out of the clean energy economy,” wrote Farley, who previously served as the Just Energy Director at Partnership for Southern Equity. “We must prioritize the voices and lived experiences of residents if we are to have more equity in utility regulation and equitably transform the energy sector.”

In another essay in the report, Nidhi Thaker and Jake Wise from Portland General Electric identify the importance of collaborating directly with the communities they serve. In 2021, the Oregon Legislature passed Oregon HB 2475, which allows the Oregon Public Utility Commission to allocate ratepayer funding for organizations representing people most affected by a high energy burden, enabling them to participate in utility regulatory processes.

The report explains why energy equity requires correcting inequities resulting from past and present failures as well as rethinking how we achieve future energy and decarbonization goals. “Equity in energy requires adopting an expansive definition of the ‘public interest’ that encompasses energy, climate, and environmental justice. Energy equity also means prioritizing the deployment of distributed energy resources and clean energy technologies in areas that have been hit first and worst by the existing fossil fuel economy,” wrote Jean Su, energy justice director and senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.

This report was supported by DOE’s Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, with funding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Switch-On Project Electric Trucks accelerate California freight decarbonization, deploying Volvo VNR Electric rigs with high-capacity charging infrastructure, zero-emissions operations, and connected safety features to cut greenhouse gases and improve urban air quality.

Key Points

A California program deploying Volvo VNR Electric trucks and charging to decarbonize freight and improve air quality.

✅ 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks for regional logistics

✅ Strategic high-capacity charging for heavy-duty fleets

✅ Lower TCO via fuel savings and reduced maintenance

In a significant step toward sustainable transportation, the Switch-On project is bringing 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks to California. This initiative aims to bolster the state's efforts to reduce emissions and transition to greener logistics solutions. The arrival of these electric vehicles marks an important milestone in California's commitment to combating climate change and improving air quality.

The Switch-On Project: Overview and Goals

The Switch-On project is a collaborative effort designed to enhance electric truck adoption in California. It focuses on developing the necessary infrastructure and technology to support electric vehicles (EVs) in the freight and logistics sectors, building on recent nonprofit investments at California ports. The project not only seeks to increase the availability of electric trucks but also aims to demonstrate their effectiveness in real-world applications.

California has set ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the transportation sector, which is one of the largest contributors to air pollution. By introducing electric trucks into freight operations, the state aims to significantly cut emissions, improve public health, and pave the way for a more sustainable future.

The Volvo VNR Electric Trucks

The Volvo VNR Electric trucks are specifically designed for regional distribution and urban transport, aligning with Volvo's broader electric lineup as the company expands offerings, making them ideal for the needs of California’s freight industry. With a range of approximately 250 miles on a single charge, these trucks can efficiently handle most regional routes. Equipped with advanced technology, including regenerative braking and connectivity features, the VNR Electric models enhance operational efficiency and safety.

These trucks not only provide a cleaner alternative to traditional diesel vehicles but also promise lower operational costs over time. With reduced fuel expenses and lower maintenance needs, and emerging vehicle-to-grid pilots that can create new value streams, businesses can benefit from significant savings while contributing to environmental sustainability.

Infrastructure Development

A crucial aspect of the Switch-On project is the development of charging infrastructure to support the new fleet of electric trucks. The project partners are working on installing high-capacity charging stations strategically located throughout California while addressing utility planning challenges that large fleets will pose to the power system. This infrastructure is essential to ensure that electric trucks can be charged efficiently, minimizing downtime and maximizing productivity.

The charging stations are designed to accommodate the specific needs of heavy-duty vehicles, and corridor models like BC's Electric Highway provide useful precedents for network design, allowing for rapid charging that aligns with operational schedules. This development not only supports the new fleet but also encourages other logistics companies to consider electric trucks as a viable option for their operations.

Benefits to California

The introduction of 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks will have several positive impacts on California. Firstly, it will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the freight sector, contributing to the state’s ambitious climate goals even as grid expansion will be needed to support widespread electrification across sectors. The transition to electric trucks is expected to improve air quality, particularly in urban areas that struggle with high pollution levels.

Moreover, the project serves as a model for other regions considering similar initiatives. By showcasing the practicality and benefits of electric trucks, California hopes to inspire widespread adoption across the nation. As the market for electric vehicles continues to grow, this project can play a pivotal role in accelerating the transition to sustainable transportation solutions.

Industry and Community Reactions

The arrival of the Volvo VNR Electric trucks has been met with enthusiasm from both industry stakeholders and community members. Logistics companies are excited about the opportunity to reduce their carbon footprints and operational costs. Meanwhile, environmental advocates applaud the project as a crucial step toward cleaner air and healthier communities.

California’s commitment to sustainable transportation has positioned it as a leader in the shift to electric vehicles amid an ongoing biofuels vs. EVs debate over the best path forward, setting an example for other states and countries.

Conclusion

The Switch-On project represents a major advancement in California's efforts to transition to electric transportation. With the deployment of 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks, the state is not only taking a significant step toward reducing emissions but also demonstrating the feasibility of electric logistics solutions.

As infrastructure develops and more electric trucks hit the roads, California is paving the way for a greener, more sustainable future in transportation. The success of this project could have far-reaching implications, influencing policies and practices in the broader freight industry and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News