Power outage hits Wesley Medical Center

California Electricity Reserve Mandate requires 3.3 GW of new capacity to bolster grid reliability amid solar power volatility, peak demand, and wildfire-driven blackouts, as CPUC directs PG&E, Edison, and Sempra to procure resource adequacy.

Key Points

A CPUC order for utilities to add 3.3 GW of reserves, safeguarding grid reliability during variable renewables and peaks

✅ 3.3 GW procurement to meet resource adequacy targets

✅ Focus on grid reliability during peak evening demand

✅ Prioritizes renewables, storage; limits new fossil builds

As if California doesn’t have enough problems with its electric service, now state regulators warn the state may be short on power supplies by 2021 if utilities don’t start lining up new resources now.

In the hopes of heading off a shortfall as America goes electric, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered the state’s electricity providers to secure 3.3 additional gigawatts of reserve supplies. That’s enough to power roughly 2.5 million homes. Half of it must be in place by 2021 and the rest by August 2023.

The move comes as California is already struggling to accommodate increasingly large amounts of solar power that regularly send electricity prices plunging below zero and force other generators offline so the region’s grid doesn’t overload. The state is also still reeling from a series of deliberate mass blackouts that utilities imposed last month to keep their power lines from sparking wildfires amid strong winds. And its largest power company, PG&E Corp., went bankrupt in January.

Now as natural gas-fired power plants retire under the state’s climate policies, officials are warning the state could run short on electricity on hot evenings, when solar production fades and commuters get home and crank up their air conditioners. “We have fewer resources that can be quickly turned on that can meet those peaks,” utilities commission member Liane Randolph said Thursday before the panel approved the order to beef up reserves.

The 3.3 gigawatts that utilities must line up is in addition to a state rule requiring them to sign contracts for 15% more electricity than they expect to need. Some critics question the need for added supplies, particularly after the state went on a plant-building boom in the 2000s.

But California’s grid managers say the risk of a shortfall is real and could be as high as 4.7 gigawatts, especially during heat waves that test the grid again. Mark Rothleder, with the California Independent System Operator, said the 15% cushion is a holdover from the days before big solar and wind farms made the grid more volatile. Now it may need to be increased, he said.

“We’re not in that world anymore,” said Rothleder, the operator’s vice president of state regulatory affairs. “The complexity of the system and the resources we have now are much different.”

The state’s three major utilities, PG&E, Edison International and Sempra Energy, will be largely responsible for securing new supplies. The commission banned fossil fuels from being used at any new power generators built to meet the requirement — though it left the door open for expansions at existing ones.

Some analysts argue California is exporting its energy policies to Western states, making electricity more costly and less reliable.

PG&E said in an emailed statement that it was pleased the commission didn’t adopt an earlier proposal to require 4 gigawatts of additional resources. Edison similarly said it was “supportive.” Sempra didn’t immediately respond with comment.

Extending Deadlines

The pending plant closures are being hastened by a 2020 deadline requiring California’s coastal generators to stop using aging seawater-cooling systems. Some gas-fired power plants have said they’ll simply close instead of installing costly new cooling systems. So the commission on Thursday also asked California water regulators to extend the deadline for five plants.

The Sierra Club, meanwhile, called on regulators to turn away from fossil fuels altogether, saying their decision Thursday “sets California back on its progress toward a clean energy future.”

The move to push back the deadline also faces opposition from neighboring towns. Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, whose city is home to one of the plants in line for an extension, told the commission it wasn’t necessary, since California utilities already have plenty of electricity reserves.

“It’s just piling on to that reserve margin,” Brand said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Power Rate Increase 2023-2024 approved by the UARB lifts electricity rates 14 percent, citing fuel costs and investments, despite Bill 212; includes ROE 9 percent, decarbonization deferral, and a storm cost recovery rider.

Key Points

An approved UARB rate case raising electricity bills about 14% over 2023-2024, with ROE 9% and cost recovery tools.

✅ UARB approves average 6.9% annual increases for 2023 and 2024.

✅ Maintains 9% ROE; sets storm cost rider trial and decarbonization deferral.

✅ Government opposed via Bill 212, but settlement mostly upheld.

Nova Scotia regulators approved a 14 per cent electricity rate hike on Thursday, defying calls by Premier Tim Houston to reject the increase.

Rates will rise on average by 6.9 per cent each year in 2023 and 2024.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the NL Consumer Advocate called an 18 per cent electricity rate hike unacceptable amid affordability concerns.

The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) issued a 203-page decision ratifying most of the elements in a settlement agreement reached between Nova Scotia Power and customer groups after Houston's government legislated a rate, spending and profit cap on the utility in November.

The board said approval was in the public interest and the increase is "reasonable and appropriate."

"The board cannot simply disallow N.S. Power's reasonable costs to make rates more affordable. These principles ensure fair rates and the financial health of a utility so it can continue to invest in the system providing services to its customers," the three-member panel wrote.

"While the board can (and has) disallowed costs found to be imprudent or unreasonable, absent such a finding, N.S. Power's costs must be reflected in the rates."

In addition to the 14 per cent hike, the board maintained Nova Scotia Power's current return on equity of 9 per cent, with an earnings band of 8.75 to 9.25 per cent. It agreed in principle to establish a decarbonization deferral account to pay for the retirement of coal plants and related decommissioning costs, and implemented a storm cost recovery rider for a three-year trial period.

The board rejected several items in the agreement, including rolling some Maritime Link transmission capital projects into consumers' rates.

Nova Scotia Power welcomed the ruling in a statement, describing it as "the culmination of an extensive and transparent regulatory process over the past year."

Natural Resources and Renewables Minister Tory Rushton, who has said the government cannot order lower power rates in Nova Scotia, stated the UARB decision was not what the government wanted, but he did not indicate the government has any plans to bring forward legislation to overturn it. 

"We're disappointed by the decision today. We've always been very clear that we were standing by ratepayers right from the get-go but we also respect the independent body of the UARB and their decision today."

Pressure from the province
Houston claimed the settlement breached his government's legislation, known as Bill 212 in Nova Scotia, which he said was intended to protect ratepayers. It capped rates to cover non-fuel costs by 1.8 per cent. It did not cap rates to cover fuel costs or energy efficiency programs.

Bill 212 was passed after the board concluded weeks of public hearings into Nova Scotia Power's request for an electricity rate increase, its first general rate application in 10 years. Nova Scotia Power is a subsidiary of Halifax-based Emera, which is a publicly traded company.

The legislation triggered credit downgrades from two credit rating agencies who said it compromised the independence of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, electricity users have begun paying for Muskrat Falls as project costs flow through rates, highlighting broader pressures on Atlantic Canada utilities.

In its decision, the board accepted that legislation was intended to protect ratepayers but did not preclude increases in rates.

"Given the exclusion of fuel and purchased power costs when these were expected to cause significant upward pressure on rates, it also did not preclude large increases in rates. Instead, the protection afforded by the Public Utilities Act amendments appears to be focused on N.S. Power's non-fuel costs, with several amendments targeting N.S. Power's cost of capital and earnings."

The board noted the province was the only intervenor in the rate case to object to the settlement.

Opposition reaction
Rushton said despite the outcome, Bill 212 achieved its goal, which was to protect ratepayers.

"Without Bill 212 the rates would have actually been higher," he said. "It would have double-digit rates for this year and next year and now it's single digits."

NDP Leader Claudia Chender said the end result is that Nova Scotians are still facing "incredibly unaffordable power."

Similar criticism emerged in Saskatchewan after an 8 per cent SaskPower increase, which the NDP opposed during provincial debates.

"It's really unfortunate for a lot of Nova Scotians who are heading into a freezing weekend where heat is not optional."

Chender said a different legislative approach is needed to change the regulatory system, and more needs to be done to help people pay their electricity bills.

Liberal MLA Kelly Regan echoed that sentiment.

"There are lots of people who can absorb this. There are a lot of people who cannot, and those are the people that we should be worried about right now. This is why we've been saying all along the government needs to actually give money directly to Nova Scotians who need help with power rates."

Rushton said the government has introduced programs to help Nova Scotians pay for heat, including raising the income threshold to access the Heating Assistance Rebate Program and creating incentives to install heat pumps.

Elsewhere, some governments have provided a lump-sum credit on electricity bills to ease short-term costs for households.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

2019 Grid Edge Trends highlight evolving demand response, DER orchestration, real-time operations, AMI data, and EV charging, as wholesale markets seek flexibility and resiliency amid tighter reserve margins and fossil baseload retirements.

Key Points

Shifts toward DER-enabled demand response and real-time, behind-the-meter flexibility.

✅ Real-time DER dispatch enhances reliability during tight reserves

✅ AMI and ICT improve forecasting, monitoring, and control of resources

✅ Demand response shifts toward aggregated behind-the-meter orchestration

Which grid edge trends will continue into 2019 as the digital grid matures and what kind of disruption is on the horizon in the coming year?

From advanced metering infrastructure endpoints to electric-vehicle chargers, grid edge venture capital investments to demand response events, hundreds of data points go into tracking new trends at the edge of the grid amid ongoing grid modernization discussions across utilities.

Trends across these variables tell a story of transition, but perhaps not yet transformation. Customers hold more power than ever before in 2019, with utilities and vendors innovating to take advantage of new opportunities behind the meter. Meanwhile, external factors can always throw things off-course, including the data center boom that is posing new power challenges, and reliability is top of mind in light of last year's extreme weather events. What does the 2018 data say about 2019?

For one thing, demand response evolved, enabled by new information and communications technology. Last year, wholesale market operators increasingly sought to leverage the dispatch of distributed energy resource flexibility in close to real time. Three independent system operators and regional transmission organizations called on demand response five times in total for relief in the summer of 2018, including the NYISO.

The demand response events called in the last 18 months send a clear message: Grid operators will continue to call events year-round. This story unfolds as reserve margins continue to tighten, fossil baseload generation retirements continue, and system operators are increasingly faced with proving the resiliency and reliability of their systems while efforts to invest in a smarter electricity infrastructure gain momentum across the country.

In 2019, the total amount of flexible demand response capacity for wholesale market participation will remain about the same. However, the way operators and aggregators are using demand response is changing as information and communications technology systems improve and utilities are using AI to adapt to electricity demands, allowing the behavior of resources to be more accurately forecasted, monitored and controlled.

These improvements are allowing customer-sited resources to offer  flexibility services closer to real-time operations and become more reactive to system needs. At the same time, traditional demand response will continue to evolve toward the orchestration of DERs as an aggregate flexible resource to better enable growing levels of renewable energy on the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

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

New York faces soaring energy bills as utilities seek record rate hikes, aging grid infrastructure demands upgrades, and federal renewable policies shift. Consumers struggle with affordability, late payments, and rising costs of delivery and energy supply across the state.

Why is New York Facing Soaring Energy Bills?

New York faces soaring energy bills because utilities are raising rates to cover the costs of grid upgrades, inflation, and policy-driven changes in energy supply.

✅ Utilities seek double-digit rate hikes across the state

✅ Aging infrastructure and storm repairs increase delivery costs

✅ Federal policies and gas dependence push energy prices higher

New Yorkers are bracing for another wave of energy bill increases as utilities seek record-high rate hikes and policy changes ripple through the state’s power system. Electric bills in New York are the highest they’ve been in over a decade, and more than a million households are now at least two months behind on payments, a sign of pandemic energy insecurity that continues to strain budgets, owing utilities nearly $2 billion.

Record numbers of households have had their electricity or gas shut off this year — more than 61,000 in May alone — despite pandemic shut-off suspensions that had offered temporary relief, the highest the Public Utility Law Project (PULP) has ever recorded. “This August was the group’s busiest month ever,” said Laurie Wheelock, PULP’s executive director, citing a surge in calls to its hotline. “The top concern on people’s minds: rate hikes.”

Utilities across the state are pushing for significant price increases, citing aging infrastructure, the need for climate adaptation, and higher operating costs, as California regulators face calls for action amid rising bills. “We used to see single-digit rate hikes and now we see double-digit rate hikes,” said Jessica Azulay, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Economy. “That’s a new normal that is unacceptable.”

Several utilities have requested delivery rate increases of 25 percent or more, with some proposals as high as 39 percent. Upstate utilities NYSEG and RG&E are seeking to raise electric and gas bills by about $33 a month, although regulators are unlikely to approve the full amount.

The companies argue the hikes are needed “to pay for rebuilding an aging grid and expanding its capacity to meet residents’ and businesses’ service demands,” including storm repairs. They also claim the plan would create more than 1,000 jobs.

James Denn, a spokesperson for the Public Service Commission (PSC), said much of the cost pressure stems from “inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain disruptions, the global push to upgrade electrical infrastructure, and, most recently, the rising risk and uncertainty from tariffs,” trends reflected in U.S. electricity price data over the past two years.

While some have blamed New York’s clean-energy transition, a PSC report found that state climate policies account for only 5 to 9.5 percent of the average household’s electric bill, or approximately $10 to $12 per month. The bulk of the increases still come from traditional spending on infrastructure, storm resilience, and system expansion.

On the supply side, costs are rising too. President Donald Trump’s recent policies have threatened renewable-energy investment nationwide, even as states’ renewable ambitions carry significant costs, potentially adding to New York’s woes. His July “megabill” phases out a 30 percent federal tax credit for solar and wind unless projects begin construction by mid-2026. Industry experts warn that the changes could make renewables “more expensive to build” and “increase reliance on gas.”

“It just means more expensive power,” said Marguerite Wells of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

The state estimates Trump’s policy shifts could cost New York $60 billion in lost renewable investment. With fewer clean-energy projects moving forward, gas — which already supplies roughly half of the state’s electricity — will remain the dominant source, tying energy prices to volatile global markets and the kinds of price drivers seen in California in recent years.

Governor Kathy Hochul has called affordability “our greatest short-term challenge,” while consumer advocates are demanding reforms to reduce utility profits and overhaul “rate design,” and to strengthen protections such as the emergency disconnection moratorium that applies during declared emergencies.

“There is definitely a groundswell of concern,” Wheelock said. “We go to meetings and we’re getting questions about rate design, like, ‘What is the revenue decoupling mechanism?’ Never had that question before.”

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News