ABB wins Belgian wind farm order

Canadian EV Manufacturing is accelerating with GM, Ford, and Project Arrow, integrating cross-border supply chains, battery production, rare-earths like lithium and cobalt, autonomous tech, and home charging to drive clean mobility and decarbonization.

Key Points

Canadian EV manufacturing spans electric and autonomous vehicles, domestic batteries, and integrated US-Canada trade.

✅ GM and Ford retool plants for EVs and autonomous production

✅ Project Arrow showcases Canadian zero-emission supply capabilities

✅ Lithium, cobalt, and battery hubs target cross-border resilience

The storied North American automotive industry, the ultimate showcase of Canada’s high-tensile trade ties with the United States and emerging Canada-U.S. collaboration on EVs momentum, is about to navigate a dramatic hairpin turn.

But as the Big Three veer into the all-electric, autonomous era, some Canadians want to seize the moment and take the wheel.

“There’s a long shadow between the promise and the execution, but all the pieces are there,” says Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association.

“We went from a marriage on the rocks to one that both partners are committed to. It could be the best second chapter ever.”

Volpe is referring specifically to GM, which announced late last month an ambitious plan to convert its entire portfolio of vehicles to an all-electric platform by 2035.

But that decision is just part of a cascading transformation across the industry, marking an EV inflection point with existential ramifications for one of the most tightly integrated cross-border manufacturing and supply-chain relationships in the world.

China is already working hard to become the “source of a new way” to power vehicles, President Joe Biden warned last week.

“We just have to step up.”

Canada has both the resources and expertise to do the same, says Volpe, whose ambitious Project Arrow concept — a homegrown zero-emissions vehicle named for the 1950s-era Avro interceptor jet — is designed to showcase exactly that, as recent EV assembly deals in Canada underscore.

“We’re going to prove to the market, we’re going to prove to the (manufacturers) around the planet, that everything that goes into your zero-emission vehicle can be made or sourced here in Canada,” he says.

“If somebody wants to bring what we did over the line and make 100,000 of them a year, I’ll hand it to them.”

GM earned the ire of Canadian auto workers in 2018 by announcing the closure of its assembly plant in Oshawa, Ont. It later resurrected the facility with a $170-million investment to retool it for autonomous vehicles.

“It was, ‘You closed Oshawa, how dare you?’ And I was one of the ‘How dare you’ people,” Volpe says.

“Well, now that they’ve reopened Oshawa, you sit there and you open your eyes to the commitment that General Motors made.”

Ford, too, has entered the fray, promising $1.8 billion to retool its sprawling landmark facility in Oakville, Ont., to build EVs.

It’s a leap of faith of sorts, considering what market experts say is ongoing consumer doubt about EVs and EV supply shortages that drive wait times.

“Range anxiety” — the persistent fear of a depleted battery at the side of the road — remains a major concern, even though it’s less of a problem than most people think.

Consulting firm Deloitte Canada, which has been tracking automotive consumer trends for more than a decade, found three-quarters of future EV buyers it surveyed planned to charge their vehicles at home overnight.

“The difference between what is a perceived issue in a consumer’s mind and what is an actual issue is actually quite negligible,” Ryan Robinson, Deloitte’s automotive research leader, says in an interview.

“It’s still an issue, full stop, and that’s something that the industry is going to have to contend with.”

So, too, is price, especially with the end of the COVID-19 pandemic still a long way off. Deloitte’s latest survey, released last month, found 45 per cent of future buyers in Canada hope to spend less than $35,000 — a tall order when most base electric-vehicle models hover between $40,000 and $45,000.

“You put all of that together and there’s still, despite the electric-car revolution hype, some major challenges that a lot of stakeholders that touch the automotive industry face,” Robinson says.

“It’s not just government, it’s not just automakers, but there are a variety of stakeholders that have a role to play in making sure that Canadians are ready to make the transition over to electric mobility.”

With protectionism no longer a dirty word in the United States and Biden promising to prioritize American workers and suppliers, the Canadian government’s job remains the same as it ever was: making sure the U.S. understands Canada’s mission-critical role in its own economic priorities.

“We’re both going to be better off on both sides of the border, as we have been in the past, if we orient ourselves toward this global competition as one force,” says Gerald Butts, vice-chairman of the political-risk consultancy Eurasia Group and a former principal secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“It served us extraordinarily well in the past … and I have no reason to believe it won’t serve us well in the future.”

Last month, GM announced a billion-dollar plan to build its new all-electric BrightDrop EV600 van in Ingersoll, Ont., at Canada’s first large-scale EV manufacturing plant for delivery vehicles.

That investment, Volpe says, assumes Canada will take the steps necessary to help build a homegrown battery industry — with projects such as a new Niagara-region battery plant pointing the way — drawing on the country’s rare-earth resources like lithium and cobalt that are waiting to be extracted in northern Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere.

Given that the EV industry is still in his infancy, the free market alone won’t be enough to ensure those resources can be extracted and developed, he says.

“General Motors made a billion-dollar bet on Canada because it’s going to assume that the Canadian government — this one or the next one — is going to commit” to building that business.

Such an investment would pay dividends well beyond the auto sector, considering the federal Liberal government’s commitment to lowering greenhouse gas-emissions, including a 2035 EV mandate, and meeting targets set out in the Paris climate accord.

“If you make investments in renewable energy and utility storage using battery technology, you can build an industry at scale that the auto industry can borrow,” Volpe says.

Major manufacturing, retail and office facilities would be able to use that technology to help “shave the peak” off Canada’s GHG emissions and achieve those targets, all the while paving the way for a self-sufficient electric-vehicle industry.

“You’d be investing in the exact same technology you’d use in a car.”

There’s one problem, says Robinson: the lithium-ion batteries on roads right now might not be where the industry ultimately lands.

“We’re not done with with battery technology,” Robinson says. “What you don’t want to do is invest in a technology that is that is rapidly evolving, and could potentially become obsolete going forward.”

Fuel cells — energy-efficient, hydrogen-powered units that work like batteries, but without the need for constant recharging — continue to be part of the conversation, he adds.

“The amount of investment is huge, and you want to be sure that you’re making the right decision, so you don’t find yourself behind the curve just as all that capacity is coming online.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Offshore Wind Capacity is set to exceed 1 GW by 2024, driven by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and resilient supply chains, with eastern states scaling renewable energy, turbines, and content despite COVID-19 disruptions.

Key Points

Projected gigawatt-scale offshore wind growth enabled by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and East Coast state demand.

✅ 17+ GW leased; only 1,870 MW in announced first phases.

✅ BOEM approvals are critical to reach >1 GW by 2024.

✅ Local supply chains mitigate COVID-19 impacts and lower costs.

Offshore wind in the U.S. will exceed 1 GW of capacity by 2024 and add more than 1 GW annually by 2027, a trajectory consistent with U.S. offshore wind power trends, according to a report released last week by Navigant Research.

The report calculated over 17 GW of offshore state and federal leases for wind production, reflecting forecasts that $1 trillion offshore wind market growth is possible. However, the owners of those leases have only announced first phase plans for 1,870 MW of capacity, leaving much of the projects in early stages with significant room to grow, according to senior research analyst Jesse Broehl.

The Business Network for Offshore Wind (BNOW) believes it is possible to hit 1 GW by 2023-24, according to CEO Liz Burdock. While the economy has taken a hit from the coronavirus pandemic, she said the offshore wind industry can continue growing as "the supply chain from Asia and Europe regains speed this summer, and the administration starts clearing" plans of construction.

BNOW is concerned with the economic hardship imposed on secondary and tertiary U.S. suppliers due to the global spread of COVID-19.

Offshore wind has been touted by many eastern states and governors as an opportunity to create jobs, with U.S. wind employment expected to expand, according to industry forecasts. Analysts see the growing momentum of projects as a way to further lower costs by creating a local supply chain, which could be jeopardized by a long-term shutdown and recession.

"The federal government must act now — today, not in December — and approve project construction and operation plans," a recent BNOW report said. Approving any of the seven projects before BOEM, which has recently received new lease requests, currently would allow small businesses to get to work "following the containment of the coronavirus," but approval of the projects next year "may be too late to keep them solvent."

The prospects for maintaining momentum in the industry falls largely to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The industry cannot hit the 1 GW milestone without project approvals by BOEM, which is revising processes to analyze federal permit applications in the context of "greater build out of offshore wind capacity," according to its website.

"It is heavily dependent on the project approval success," Burdock told Utility Dive.

Currently, seven projects are awaiting determinations from BOEM on their construction operation plans in Massachusetts, New York, where a major offshore wind farm was recently approved, New Jersey and Maryland, with more to be added soon, a BNOW spokesperson told Utility Dive.

To date, only one project has received BOEM approval for development in federal waters, a 12 MW pilot by Dominion Energy and Ørsted in Virginia. The two-turbine project is a stepping stone to a commercial-scale 2.6 GW project the companies say could begin installation as soon as 2024, and gave the developers experience with the permitting process.

In the U.S., developers have the capacity to develop 16.9 GW of offshore wind in federal U.S. lease areas, even as wind power's share of the electricity mix surges nationwide, Broehl told Utility Dive, but much of that is in early stages. The Navigant report did not address any impacts of coronavirus on offshore wind, he said.

Although Massachusetts has legislation in place to require utilities to purchase 1.6 GW of wind power by 2026, and several other projects are in early development stages, Navigant expects the first large offshore wind projects in the U.S. (exceeding 200 MW) will come online in 2022 or later, and the first projects with 400 MW or more capacity are likely to be built by 2024-2025, and lessons from the U.K.'s experience could help accelerate timelines. The U.S. would add about 1.2 GW in 2027, Broehl said.

The federal leasing activities along with the involvement from Eastern states and utilities "virtually guarantees that a large offshore wind market is going to take off in the U.S.," Broehl said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Power Grid Level 2 Alert signals AESO reserve power usage, load management, supply shortage from generator outages, low wind, and limited imports, urging peak demand conservation to avoid blackouts and preserve grid reliability.

Key Points

An AESO status where reserves power the grid and load management is used during supply constraints to prevent blackouts.

✅ Triggered by outages, low wind, and reduced import capacity

✅ Peak hours 4 to 7 pm saw conservation requests

✅ Several hundred MW margin from Level 3 load shedding

Alberta's energy grid ran on reserves Wednesday, after multiple factors led to a supply shortage, a scenario explored in U.S. grid COVID response discussions as operators plan for contingencies.

At 3:52 p.m. Wednesday, the Alberta Electric System Operator issued a Level 2 alert, meaning that reserves were being used to supply energy requirements and that load management procedures had been implemented, while operators elsewhere adopted Ontario power staffing lockdown measures during COVID-19 for continuity. The alert ended at 6:06 p.m.

"This is due to unplanned generator outages, low wind and a reduction of import capability," the agency said in a post to social media. "Supply is tight but still meeting demand."

AESO spokesperson Mike Deising said the intertie with Saskatchewan had tripped off, and an issue on the British Columbia side of the border, as seen during BC Hydro storm response events, meant the province couldn't import power. 

"There are no blackouts … this just means we're using our reserve power, and that's a standard procedure we'll deploy," he said. 

AESO had asked that people reduce their energy consumption between 4 and 7 p.m., similar to Cal ISO conservation calls during grid strain, which is typically when peak use occurs. 

Deising said the system was several hundred MWs away from needing to move to an alert Level 3, with utilities such as FortisAlberta precautions in place to support continuity, which is when power is cut off to some customers in order to keep the system operating. Deising said Level 2 alerts are fairly rare and occur every few years. The last Level 3 alert was in 2013. 

According to the supply and demand report on AESO's website, the load on the grid at 5 p.m. was 10,643 MW.

That's down significantly from last week, when a heat wave pushed demand to record highs on the grid, with loads in the 11,700 MW range, contrasting with Ontario demand drop during COVID when many stayed home. 

A heat warning was issued Wednesday for Edmonton and surrounding areas shortly before 4 p.m., with temperatures above 29 C expected over the next three days, with many households seeing residential electricity use up during such periods. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

California Income-Based Utility Fees would overhaul electricity bills as CPUC weighs fixed charges tied to income, grid maintenance costs, AB 205 changes, and per-kilowatt-hour rates, shifting from pure usage pricing to hybrid utility rate design.

Key Points

Income-based utility fees are fixed monthly charges tied to earnings, alongside per-kWh rates, to help fund grid costs.

✅ CPUC considers fixed charges by income under AB 205

✅ Separates grid costs from per-kWh energy charges

✅ Could shift rooftop solar and EV charging economics

Electricity bills in California are likely to change dramatically in 2026, with major changes under discussion statewide.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is in the midst of an unprecedented overhaul of the way most of the state’s residents pay for electricity, as it considers revamping electricity rates to meet grid and climate goals.

Utility bills currently rely on a use-more pay-more system, where bills are directly tied to how much electricity a resident consumes, a setup that helps explain why prices are soaring for many households.

California lawmakers are asking regulators to take a different approach, and some are preparing to crack down on utility spending as oversight intensifies. Some of the bill will pay for the kilowatt hours a customer uses and a monthly fixed fee will help pay for expenses to maintain the electric grid: the poles, the substations, the batteries, and the wires that bring power to people’s homes.

The adjustments to the state’s public utility code, section 739.9, came about because of changes written into a sweeping energy bill passed last summer, AB 205, though some lawmakers now aim to overturn income-based charges in subsequent measures.

A stroke of a pen, a legislative vote, and the governor’s signature created a move toward unprecedented income-based fixed charges across the state.

“This was put in at the last minute,” said Ahmad Faruqui, a California economist with a long professional background in utility rates. “Nobody even knew it was happening. It was not debated on the floor of the assembly where it was supposedly passed. Of course, the governor signed it.”

Faruqui wonders who was responsible for legislation that was added to the energy bill during the budget writing process. That process is not transparent.

“It’s a very small clause in a very long bill, which is mostly about other issues,” Faruqui said.

But that small adjustment could have a massive impact on California residents, because it links the size of a monthly flat fee for utility service to a resident’s income. Earn more money and pay a higher flat fee.

That fee must be paid even before customers are charged for how much power they draw.

Regulators interpreted legislative change as a mandate, but Faruqui is not sold.

“They said the commission may consider or should consider,” Faruqui said. “They didn’t mandate it. It’s worth re-reading it.”

In fact, the legislative language says the commission “may” adopt income-based flat fees for utilities. It does not say the commission “should” adopt them.

Nevertheless, the CPUC has already requested and received nine proposals for how a flat fee should be implemented, as regulators face calls for action amid soaring electricity bills.

The suggestions came from consumer groups, environmentalists, the solar industry and utilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

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

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

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

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

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

Common mistakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News