Honda CEO keen on EV market

Honda Ontario EV Investment accelerates electric vehicle manufacturing in Canada, adding a battery plant, EV assembly capacity, clean energy supply chains, government subsidies, and thousands of jobs to expand North American production and innovation.

Key Points

The Honda Ontario EV Investment is a $18.4B plan for EV assembly and battery production, jobs, and clean growth.

✅ $18.4B for EV assembly and large-scale battery production

✅ Thousands of Ontario manufacturing jobs and supply chain growth

✅ Backed by Canadian subsidies to accelerate clean transportation

The automotive industry in Ontario is on the verge of a significant transformation amid an EV jobs boom across the province, as Honda announces plans to build a new electric vehicle (EV) assembly plant and a large-scale battery production facility in the province. According to several sources, Honda is prepared to invest an estimated $18.4 billion in this initiative, signalling a major commitment to accelerating the automaker's shift towards electrification.

Expanding Ontario's EV Ecosystem

This exciting new investment from Honda builds upon the growing momentum of electric vehicle development in Ontario. The province is already home to a burgeoning EV manufacturing ecosystem, with automakers like Stellantis and General Motors investing heavily in retooling existing plants for EV production, including GM's $1B Ontario EV plant in the province. Honda's new facilities will significantly expand Ontario's role in the North American electric vehicle market.

Canadian Government Supports Clean Vehicles

The Canadian government has been actively encouraging the transition to cleaner transportation by offering generous subsidies to bolster EV manufacturing and adoption, exemplified by the Ford Oakville upgrade that received $500M in support. These incentives have been instrumental in attracting major investments from automotive giants like Honda and solidifying Canada's position as a global leader in EV technology.

Thousands of New Jobs

Honda's investment is not only excellent news for the Canadian economy but also promises to create thousands of new jobs in Ontario, boosting the province's manufacturing sector. The presence of a significant EV and battery production hub will attract a skilled workforce, as seen with a Niagara Region battery plant that is bolstering the region's EV future, and likely lead to the creation of related businesses and industries that support the EV supply chain.

Details of the Plan

While the specific location of the proposed Honda plants has not yet been confirmed, sources indicate that the facilities will likely be built in Southwestern Ontario, near Ford's Oakville EV program and other established sites. Honda's existing assembly plant in Alliston will be converted to produce hybrid models as part of the company's broader plan to electrify its lineup.

Honda's Global EV Ambitions

This substantial investment in Canada aligns with Honda's global commitment to electrifying its vehicle offerings. The company has set ambitious goals to phase out traditional gasoline-powered cars and achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.  Honda aims to expand EV production in North America to meet growing consumer demand and deepen Canada-U.S. collaboration in the EV industry.

The Future of Transportation

Honda's announcement signifies a turning point for the automotive landscape in Canada. This major investment reinforces the shift toward electric vehicles as an inevitable future, with EV assembly deals putting Canada in the race as well.  The move highlights Canada's dedication to fostering a sustainable, clean-energy economy while establishing a robust automotive manufacturing industry for the 21st century.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Eviation Collapse underscores electric aviation headwinds, from Alice aircraft battery limits to FAA/EASA certification hurdles, funding shortfalls, and leadership instability, reshaping sustainability roadmaps for regional airliners and future zero-emission flight.

Key Points

Eviation Collapse is the 2025 shutdown of Eviation Aircraft, revealing battery, certification, and funding hurdles.

✅ Battery energy density limits curtailed Alice's range

✅ FAA/EASA certification timelines delayed commercialization

✅ Funding gaps and leadership churn undermined execution

The electric aviation industry was poised to revolutionize the skies through an aviation revolution with startups like Eviation Aircraft leading the charge to bring environmentally friendly, cost-efficient electric airplanes into commercial use. However, in a shocking turn of events, Eviation has faced an abrupt collapse, signaling challenges that may impact the future of electric flight.

Eviation’s Vision and Early Promise

Founded in 2015, Eviation was an ambitious electric airplane startup with the goal of changing the way the world thinks about aviation. The company’s flagship product, the Alice aircraft, was designed to be an all-electric regional airliner capable of carrying up to 9 passengers. With a focus on sustainability, reduced operating costs, and a quieter flight experience, Alice attracted attention as one of the most promising electric aircraft in development.

Eviation’s aircraft was aimed at replacing small, inefficient, and environmentally damaging regional aircraft, reducing emissions in the aviation industry. The startup’s vision was bold: to create an airplane that could offer all the benefits of electric power – lower operating costs, less noise, and a smaller environmental footprint. Their goal was not only to attract major airlines but also to pave the way for a more sustainable future in aviation.

The company’s early success was driven by substantial investments and partnerships. It garnered attention from aviation giants and venture capitalists alike, drawing support for its innovative technology. In fact, in 2019, Eviation secured a deal with the Israeli airline, El Al, for several aircraft, a deal that seemed to promise a bright future for the company.

Challenges in the Electric Aviation Industry

Despite its early successes and strong backing, Eviation faced considerable challenges that eventually contributed to its downfall. The electric aviation sector, as promising as it seemed, has always been riddled with hurdles – from battery technology to regulatory approvals, and compounded by Europe’s EV slump that dampened clean-transport sentiment, the path to producing commercially viable electric airplanes has proven more difficult than initially anticipated.

The first major issue Eviation encountered was the slow development of battery technology. While electric car companies like Tesla were able to scale their operations quickly during the electric vehicle boom due to advancements in battery efficiency, aviation technology faced a more significant obstacle. The energy density required for a plane to fly long distances with sufficient payload was far greater than what existing battery technology could offer. This limitation severely impacted the range of the Alice aircraft, preventing it from meeting the expectations set by its creators.

Another challenge was the lengthy regulatory approval process for electric aircraft. Aviation is one of the most regulated industries in the world, and getting a new aircraft certified for flight takes time and rigorous testing. Although Eviation’s Alice was touted as an innovative leap in aviation technology, the company struggled to navigate the complex process of meeting the safety and operational standards required by aviation authorities, such as the FAA and EASA.

Financial Difficulties and Leadership Changes

As challenges mounted, Eviation’s financial situation became increasingly precarious. The company struggled to secure additional funding to continue its development and scale operations. Investors, once eager to back the promising startup, grew wary as timelines stretched and costs climbed, amid a U.S. EV market share dip in early 2024, tempering enthusiasm. With the electric aviation market still in its early stages, Eviation faced stiff competition from more established players, including large aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus, who also began to invest heavily in electric and hybrid-electric aircraft technologies.

Leadership instability also played a role in Eviation’s collapse. The company went through several executive changes over a short period, and management’s inability to solidify a clear vision for the future raised concerns among stakeholders. The lack of consistent leadership hindered the company’s ability to make decisions quickly and efficiently, further exacerbating its financial challenges.

The Sudden Collapse

In 2025, Eviation made the difficult decision to shut down its operations. The company announced the closure after failing to secure enough funding to continue its development and meet its ambitious production goals. The sudden collapse of Eviation sent shockwaves through the electric aviation sector, where many had placed their hopes on the startup’s innovative approach to electric flight.

The failure of Eviation has left many questioning the future of electric aviation. While the industry is still in its infancy, Eviation’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of bringing cutting-edge technology to the skies. The ambitious vision of a sustainable, electric future in aviation may still be achievable, but the path to success will require overcoming significant technological, regulatory, and financial obstacles.

What’s Next for Electric Aviation?

Despite Eviation’s collapse, the electric aviation sector is far from dead. Other companies, such as Joby Aviation, Vertical Aerospace, and Ampaire, are continuing to develop electric and hybrid-electric aircraft, building on milestones like Canada’s first commercial electric flight that signal ongoing demand for green alternatives to traditional aviation.

Moreover, major aircraft manufacturers are doubling down on their own electric aircraft projects. Boeing, for example, has launched several initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions in aviation, while Harbour Air’s point-to-point e-seaplane flight showcases near-term regional progress, and Airbus is testing a hybrid-electric airliner prototype. The collapse of Eviation may slow down progress, but it is unlikely to derail the broader movement toward electric flight entirely.

The lessons learned from Eviation’s failure will undoubtedly inform the future of the electric aviation sector. Innovation, perseverance, and a steady stream of investment will be critical for the success of future electric aircraft startups, as exemplified by Harbour Air’s research-driven electric aircraft efforts that highlight the value of sustained R&D. While the dream of electric planes may have suffered a setback, the long-term vision of cleaner, more sustainable aviation is still alive.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

China Nuclear Power Expansion accelerates with reactor approvals, Hualong One and CAP1400 deployments, rising gigawatts, clean energy targets, carbon neutrality goals, and grid reliability benefits to meet coastal demand and reduce emissions.

Key Points

An accelerated reactor buildout to add clean capacity, curb emissions, and improve grid reliability nationwide.

✅ Approvals surge for Hualong One and CAP1400 third-gen reactors

✅ Capacity targets approach 100 GW installed by 2030

✅ Supports carbon neutrality, energy security, and lower costs

While China has failed to accomplish its 2020 nuclear target of 58 gigawatts under operation and 30 GW under construction, insiders are optimistic about prospects for the nonpolluting energy resource in China over the next five years as the country has stepped up nuclear approvals and construction since 2020.

China expects to record 49 operating nuclear facilities and capacity of more than 51 GW as of the end of 2020. Nuclear power currently makes up around 2.4 percent of the country's total installed energy capacity, said the China Nuclear Energy Association. There are 19 facilities that have received approval and are under construction, with capacity exceeding 20 GW, ranking top globally as nuclear project milestones worldwide continue, it said.

"With surging power demand from coastal regions, more domestic technology, including next-gen nuclear, will be adopted with installations likely nearing 100 GW by the end of 2030," said Wei Hanyang, a power market analyst at Bloomberg New Energy.

Following the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster in 2011 in Japan, China has, like many countries including Japan, Germany and Switzerland, suspended nuclear power project approvals for a period, including construction of the pilot project of Shidaowan nuclear power plant in Shandong province that uses CAP1400 technology, based on third-generation Westinghouse AP1000 reactor technology.

As China promotes greener development and prioritizes safety and security of nuclear power plant construction, it has pledged to hit peak emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, with electricity meeting 60% of energy use by 2060 according to Shell, the Shidaowan plant, originally scheduled to launch construction in 2014 and enter service in 2018, is expected to start fuel loading and begin operations this year.

Joseph Jacobelli, an independent energy analyst and executive vice-president for Asia business at Cenfura Ltd, a smart energy services company, said recent developments confirm China's ongoing commitment to further boost the country's nuclear sector.

"The nuclear plants can help meet China's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as the country reduces coal power production and provide air pollution-free energy at a lower cost to consumers. China's need for clean energy means that nuclear power generation definitely has an important place in the long-term energy mix," Jacobelli said.

He added that Chinese companies' cost control capabilities and technological advancements, and operational performance improvements such as the AP1000 refueling outage record, are also likely to continue providing domestic companies with advantages, as the cost per kilowatt-hour is very important, especially as solar, wind and other clean energy solutions become even cheaper over the next few years.

China approved two nuclear projects in 2020- Hainan Changjiang nuclear power plant unit 2 and Zhejiang San'ao nuclear power plant unit 1. This is after the country launched three new nuclear power plants in 2019 in the provinces of Shandong, Fujian and Guangdong, which marked the end of a moratorium on new projects.

The Zhejiang San'ao nuclear power plant saw concrete poured for unit 1 on Dec 31, according to its operator China General Nuclear. It will be the first of six Hualong One pressurized water reactors to be built at the site as well as the first Chinese nuclear power plant project to involve private capital.

Jointly invested, constructed and operated by CGN, Zheneng Electric Power, Wenzhou Nuclear Energy Development, Cangnan County Haixi Construction Development and Geely Maijie Investment, the project creates a new model of mixed ownership of nuclear power enterprises, said CGN.

The world's first Hualong One reactor at unit 5 of China National Nuclear Corp's Fuqing nuclear plant in Fujian province was connected to the grid in November. With the start of work on San'ao unit 1, China now has further seven Hualong One units under construction, including Fuqing 6, which is scheduled to go online this year.

CNNC is also constructing one unit at Taipingling in Guangdong and two at Zhangzhou in Fujian province. CGN is building two at its Fangchenggang site in Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region. In addition, two Hualong One units are under construction at Karachi in Pakistan, while CGN proposes to use a UK version of the Hualong One at Bradwell in the United Kingdom, aligning with the country's green industrial revolution strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Global Decarbonization Strategies align renewable energy, electrification, clean air policies, IMO sulfur cap, LNG fuels, and the EU 2050 roadmap to cut carbon intensity and meet Paris Agreement targets via EVs and efficiency.

Key Points

Frameworks that cut emissions via renewables, EVs, efficiency, cleaner marine fuels, and EU policy roadmaps.

✅ Renewables scale as wind and solar outcompete new coal and gas.

✅ Electrification of transport grows as EV costs fall and charging expands.

✅ IMO 2020 sulfur cap and LNG shift cut shipping emissions and particulates.

Are we doing enough to save the planet? Silly question. The latest prognosis from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made for gloomy reading. Fundamental to the Paris Agreement is the target of keeping global average temperatures from rising beyond 2°C. The UN argues that radical measures are needed, and investment incentives for clean electricity are seen as critical by many leaders to accelerate progress to meet that target.

Renewable power and electrification of transport are the pillars of decarbonization. It’s well underway in renewables - the collapse in costs make wind and solar generation competitive with new build coal and gas.

Renewables’ share of the global power market will triple by 2040 from its current level of 6% according to our forecasts.

The consumption side is slower, awaiting technological breakthrough and informed by efforts in countries such as New Zealand’s electricity transition to replace fossil fuels with electricity. The lower battery costs needed for electric vehicles (EVs) to compete head on and displace internal combustion engine (ICE)  cars are some years away. These forces only start to have a significant impact on global carbon intensity in the 2030s. Our forecasts fall well short of the 2°C target, as does the IEA’s base case scenario.

Yet we can’t just wait for new technology to come to the rescue. There are encouraging signs that society sees the need to deal with a deteriorating environment. Three areas of focus came out in discussion during Wood Mackenzie’s London Energy Forum - unrelated, different in scope and scale, each pointing the way forward.

First, clean air in cities.  China has shown how to clean up a local environment quickly. The government reacted to poor air quality in Beijing and other major cities by closing older coal power plants and forcing energy intensive industry and the residential sector to shift away from coal. The country’s return on investment will include a substantial future health care dividend.

European cities are introducing restrictions on diesel cars to improve air quality. London’s 2017 “toxicity charge” is a precursor of an Ultra-Low Emission Zone in 2019, and aligns with UK net-zero policy changes that affect transport planning, to be extended across much of the city by 2020. Paris wants to ban diesel cars from the city centre by 2025 and ICE vehicles by 2030. Barcelona, Madrid, Hamburg and Stuttgart are hatching similar plans.

College Promise In California: Community-Wide Efforts To Support Student Success

Second, desulphurisation of global shipping. High sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) meets around 3.5 million barrels per day (b/d) of the total marine market of 5 million b/d. A maximum of 3.5% sulphur content is allowed currently. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) implements a 0.5% limit on all shipping in 2020, dramatically reducing the release of sulphur oxides into the atmosphere.

Some ships will switch to very low sulphur fuel oil, of which only around 1.4 million b/d will be available in 2020. Others will have to choose between investing in scrubbers or buying premium-priced low sulphur marine gas oil.

Longer-term, lower carbon-intensity gas is a winner as liquefied natural gas becomes fuel of choice for many newbuilds. Marine LNG demand climbs from near zero to 50 million tonnes per annum (tpa) by 2040 on our forecasts, behind only China, India and Japan as a demand centre. LNG will displace over 1 million b/d of oil demand in shipping by 2040.

Third, Europe’s radical decarbonisation plans. Already in the vanguard of emissions reductions policy, the European Commission is proposing to reduce carbon emissions for new cars and vans by 30% by 2030 versus 2020. The targets come with incentives for car manufacturers linked to the uptake of EVs.

The 2050 roadmap, presently at the concept stage, envisages a far more demanding regime, with EU electricity plans for 2050 implying a much larger power system. The mooted 80% reduction in emissions compared with 1990 will embrace all sectors. Power and transport are already moving in this direction, but the legacy fuel mix in many other sectors will be disrupted, too.

Near zero-energy buildings and homes might be possible with energy efficiency improvements, renewables and heat pumps. Electrification, recycling and bioenergy could reduce fossil fuel use in energy intensive sectors like steel and aluminium, and Europe’s oil majors going electric illustrates how incumbents are adapting. Some sectors will cite the risk decarbonisation poses to Europe’s global competitiveness. If change is to come, industry will need to build new partnerships with society to meet these targets.

The 2050 roadmap signals the ambition and will be game changing for Europe if it is adopted. It would provide a template for a global roll out that would go a long way toward meeting UN’s concerns.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News