US renewable energy hit record 28% in April.

EPA Auto Emissions Proposal 2027-2032 sets strict tailpipe emissions limits, accelerating electric vehicle adoption, cutting greenhouse gases, advancing climate policy, and reducing oil dependence through battery-electric cars and trucks across U.S. markets.

Key Points

An EPA plan setting strict tailpipe limits to drive EV adoption, cut greenhouse gases, and reduce oil use in vehicles.

✅ Cuts GHGs 56% vs. 2026 standards; improves national air quality.

✅ Targets up to two-thirds EV sales by 2032 nationwide.

✅ Reduces oil imports by about 20 billion barrels; lowers costs.

The Biden administration is proposing strict new automobile pollution limits that would require up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2032, a nearly tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales.

The proposed regulation, announced Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would set tailpipe emissions limits for the 2027 through 2032 model years that are the strictest ever imposed — and call for far more new EV sales than the auto industry agreed to less than two years ago, a shift aligned with U.S. EV sales momentum in early 2024.

If finalized next year as expected, the plan would represent the strongest push yet toward a once almost unthinkable shift from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to battery-powered vehicles, as the market approaches an inflection point in adoption.

The Biden administration is proposing strict new automobile pollution limits that would require up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2032, a nearly tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales.

The proposed regulation, announced Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would set tailpipe emissions limits for the 2027 through 2032 model years that are the strictest ever imposed — and call for far more new EV sales than the auto industry agreed to less than two years ago, a direction mirrored by Canada's EV sales regulations now being finalized.

If finalized next year as expected, the plan would represent the strongest push yet toward a once almost unthinkable shift from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to battery-powered vehicles, with many analysts forecasting widespread adoption within a decade among buyers.

Reaching half was always a “stretch goal," given that EVs still trail gas cars in market share and contingent on manufacturing incentives and tax credits to make EVs more affordable, he wrote.

“The question isn’t can this be done, it’s how fast can it be done,” Bozzella wrote. “How fast will depend almost exclusively on having the right policies and market conditions in place.”

European car maker Stellantis said that, amid broader EV mandate debates across North America, officials were “surprised that none of the alternatives” proposed by EPA "align with the president’s previously announced target of 50% EVs by 2030.''

Q. How will the proposal benefit the environment?

A. The proposed standards for light-duty cars and trucks are projected to result in a 56% reduction in projected greenhouse gas emissions compared with existing standards for model year 2026, the EPA said. The proposals would improve air quality for communities across the nation, and, with actual benefits influenced by grid mix — for example, Canada's fossil electricity share affects lifecycle emissions — avoiding nearly 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2055, more than twice the total U.S. CO2 emissions last year, the EPA said.

The plan also would save thousands of dollars over the lives of the vehicles sold and reduce U.S. reliance on approximately 20 billion barrels of oil imports, the agency said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Offshore Wind Power Strategy leverages UK offshore wind lessons, contract auctions, and supply chains to scale renewable energy, build wind farms, cut emissions, create jobs, and modernize the grid to meet 2030 climate goals.

Key Points

U.S. plan to scale offshore wind via UK-style contracts, turbines, and supply chains to meet 2030 clean energy goals

✅ Contract-for-difference price guarantees de-risk projects

✅ Scale turbines and ports to cut LCOE and boost capacity

✅ Build coastal grids, transmission, and workforce by 2030

As President Joe Biden’s administration puts its muscle behind wind power with plans to develop large-scale wind farms along the entire United States coastline, the administration can look at how the windiest nation in Europe is transforming its energy grid for an example of how to proceed.

In the search for renewable sources of energy, the United Kingdom has embraced wind power. In 2020, the country generated as much as 24 percent of its electricity from wind power across the grid — enough to supply 18.5 million homes, according to government statistics. 

With usually reliable winds, the U.K. currently has the highest number of offshore turbines installed in the world, with China at a close second.

Experts and industry leaders say it offers valuable lessons on creating a viable market for wind power at the ambitious scale the Biden administration hopes to meet in order to confront climate change and help transition the U.S. economy to renewable energy.

“The U.S. is going to benefit hugely from the early investment that European governments have put into offshore wind,” said Oliver Metcalfe, a wind power analyst at BloombergNEF in London, an independent research group.

Big American plans
On Oct. 13, the White House announced ambitious offshore wind plans to lease federal waters off of the East and West Coasts and Gulf of Mexico to develop commercial wind farms.

The move is part of Biden’s goal to have 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind power produced in the United States by 2030, with projects such as New York's record-setting approval highlighting the momentum. The White House says that would generate enough electricity to power more than 10 million homes and in the process create 77,000 jobs. 

But there is a chasm between where the U.S. is now and where it wants to be within the next decade when it comes to offshore wind power.

“We’re the first generation to understand the science and implications of climate change and we’re the last generation to be able to do something about it.”

The U.S. is not new to wind power; onshore wind in states such as Texas, Oklahoma and Iowa supplied 8.2 percent of the country’s total electricity generation in 2020, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. 

But despite its long coastlines, offshore wind has been a largely untapped resource in the U.S. With a population of about 332 million people, the U.S. currently has just two operational offshore wind farms — off Rhode Island and Virginia — with the capacity to produce 42 megawatts of electricity between them, far from the 1 gigawatt on-grid milestone many are watching. 

In contrast, the U.K., with a population of 67 million people, has 2,297 offshore wind turbines with the capacity to produce 10,415 megawatts of electricity.

Power station or a park?
Just outside of central Glasgow, the host city for the U.N. climate change conference known as COP26, the fruits of years of effort to move away from fossil fuels can be seen and heard

International financiers, including the World Bank are helping developing countries scale wind projects to meet climate goals.

Whitelee Windfarm, the U.K.’s largest onshore wind farm, spreads across 30 square miles on the Eaglesham Moor and includes more than 80 miles of trails for walking, cycling and horseback riding.

With its 539 megawatt capacity, it generates enough electricity for 350,000 homes — more than half the population of Glasgow. 

On a recent gusty fall day, Ian and Fiona Gardner, both 71, were walking their dogs among the wind farm’s 360-foot-tall turbines  

“This is a major contribution to Scotland, to become independent from oil by 2035,” Ian Gardner, an accountant, said. 

Thanks to the rapid technological advances in turbine technology, this wind farm that was completed in 2009, is now practically old school. The latest crop of onshore turbines typically generate double the current capacity of Whitelee’s turbines.

“It took us 20 years to build 2 gigawatts of power. And we’re going to double that in five  years,” said McQuade, an economist. “We can do that because machines are big, efficient, cheap and the supply chain is there.” 

The biggest operational offshore wind farm in the world right now, Hornsea Project One, is about 75 miles off England’s Yorkshire coast in the North Sea.

Owned and operated by Orsted, a former Danish oil and gas giant, in partnership with Global Infrastructure Partners, its 174 turbines have the capacity to generate 1.2 gigawatts — enough to power over 1 million homes and roughly equivalent to a nuclear power plant. 

Benj Sykes, Vice President of U.K. Offshore Wind at Orsted, called Hornsea One a “game changer” in a recent phone interview, citing it as an example of how the industry has scaled up its output to compete with traditional power plants.

But massive projects like Hornsea One took decades to get up and running, as well as government help. According to Malte Jansen, a research associate at the Centre of Environmental Policy at Imperial College London, the British government helped facilitate a “paradigm shift” in renewable energy in 2013.

The electricity market reform policy set up a framework to incentivize investment in offshore wind farms by creating an auction system that guarantees electricity prices to developers in 15-year contracts, alongside new contract awards that add 10 GW to the U.K. grid. 

This means there is no upside in terms of market price fluctuation, but there is no downside either. The policy essentially “de-risked the investment,” Jansen said.

The state contracts allowed the industry to innovate and learn how to develop even larger and more efficient turbines with blades that stretch as long as 267 feet, about three-quarters the size of a U.S. football field. 

While this approach helped companies and investors, it will also have an unintended beneficiary — the U.S., Metcalfe from BloombergNEF said. 

Developers are “taking the lessons they’ve learned building projects in Europe, the cost reductions that they’ve achieved building projects in Europe and are now bringing those to the U.S. market,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Pyroelectric Energy Harvesting captures low-grade heat via thin-film materials, converting temperature fluctuations into power for waste heat recovery in electronics, vehicles, and industrial machinery, offering a thermoelectric alternative for microelectronics and exascale systems.

Key Points

Thin-film pyroelectric harvesting turns temperature changes into electricity, enabling low-grade waste heat recovery.

✅ Converts low-grade heat fluctuations into usable power

✅ Thin-film design suits microelectronics and edge devices

✅ Alternative to thermoelectrics for waste heat recovery

The electronic device you are reading this on is currently producing a modest to significant amount of waste heat that emerging thermoelectric materials could help recover in principle. In fact, nearly 70% of the energy produced annually in the US is ultimately wasted as heat, much of it less than 100 degrees Celsius. The main culprits are computers and other electronic devices, vehicles, as well as industrial machinery. Heat waste is also a big problem for supercomputers, because as more circuitry is condensed into smaller and smaller areas, the hotter those microcircuits get.

It’s also been estimated that a single next-generation exascale supercomputer could feasibly use up to 10% of the energy output of just one coal-fired power station, and that nearly all of that energy would ultimately be wasted as heat.

What if it were possible to convert that heat energy into a useable energy source, and even to generate electricity at night from temperature differences as well?

#google#

It’s not a new idea, of course. In fact the possibility of thermoelectric energy generation, where thermal energy is turned into electricity was recognised as early as 1821, around the same time that Michael Faraday developed the electric motor.

Unfortunately, when the heat source is ‘low grade’, aka less than 100 degrees Celsius, a number of limitations arise, and related approaches for nighttime renewable generation face similar challenges as well. For it to work well, you need materials that have quite high electrical conductivity, but low thermal conductivity. It’s not an easy combination to come by.

Taking a different approach, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have developed thin-film that uses pyroelectric harvesting to capture heat-waste and convert heat to electricity in prototype demonstrations. The findings were published today in Nature Materials.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Adoption Limits highlight that electric vehicles alone cannot meet emissions targets; life cycle assessment, carbon budgets, clean grids, public transit, and battery materials constraints demand broader decarbonization strategies, city redesign, and active travel.

Key Points

EV Adoption Limits show EVs alone cannot hit climate targets; modal shift, clean grids, and travel demand are essential.

✅ 350M EVs by 2050 still miss 2 C goals without major mode shift

✅ Grid demand rises 41%, requiring clean power and smart charging

✅ Battery materials constraints need recycling, supply diversification

Today there are more than seven million electric vehicles (EVs) in operation around the world, compared with only about 20,000 a decade ago. It’s a massive change – but according to a group of researchers at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering, it won’t be nearly enough to address the global climate crisis. 

“A lot of people think that a large-scale shift to EVs will mostly solve our climate problems in the passenger vehicle sector,” says Alexandre Milovanoff, a PhD student and lead author of a new paper published in Nature Climate Change. 

“I think a better way to look at it is this: EVs are necessary, but on their own, they are not sufficient.” 

Around the world, many governments are already going all-in on EVs. In Norway, for example, where EVs already account for half of new vehicle sales, the government has said it plans to eliminate sales of new internal combustion vehicles by 2025. The Netherlands aims to follow suit by 2030, with France and Canada's EV goals aiming to follow by 2040. Just last week, California announced plans to ban sales of new internal combustion vehicles by 2035.

Milovanoff and his supervisors in the department of civil and mineral engineering – Assistant Professor Daniel Posen and Professor Heather MacLean – are experts in life cycle assessment, which involves modelling the impacts of technological changes across a range of environmental factors. 

They decided to run a detailed analysis of what a large-scale shift to EVs would mean in terms of emissions and related impacts. As a test market, they chose the United States, which is second only to China in terms of passenger vehicle sales. 

“We picked the U.S. because they have large, heavy vehicles, as well as high vehicle ownership per capita and high rate of travel per capita,” says Milovanoff. “There is also lots of high-quality data available, so we felt it would give us the clearest answers.” 

The team built computer models to estimate how many electric vehicles would be needed to keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100, a target often cited by climate researchers. 

“We came up with a novel method to convert this target into a carbon budget for U.S. passenger vehicles, and then determined how many EVs would be needed to stay within that budget,” says Posen. “It turns out to be a lot.” 

Based on the scenarios modelled by the team, the U.S. would need to have about 350 million EVs on the road by 2050 in order to meet the target emissions reductions. That works out to about 90 per cent of the total vehicles estimated to be in operation at that time. 

“To put that in perspective, right now the total proportion of EVs on the road in the U.S. is about 0.3 per cent,” says Milovanoff. 

“It’s true that sales are growing fast, but even the most optimistic projections of an electric-car revolution suggest that by 2050, the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent EVs.” 

The team says that, in addition to the barriers of consumer preferences for EV deployment, there are technological barriers such as the strain that EVs would place on the country’s electricity infrastructure, though proper grid management can ease integration. 

According to the paper, a fleet of 350 million EVs would increase annual electricity demand by 1,730 terawatt hours, or about 41 per cent of current levels. This would require massive investment in infrastructure and new power plants, some of which would almost certainly run on fossil fuels in some regions. 

The shift could also impact what’s known as the demand curve – the way that demand for electricity rises and falls at different times of day – which would make managing the national electrical grid more complex, though vehicle-to-grid strategies could help smooth peaks. Finally, there are technical challenges stemming from the supply of critical materials for batteries, including lithium, cobalt and manganese. 

The team concludes that getting to 90 per cent EV ownership by 2050 is an unrealistic scenario. Instead, what they recommend is a mix of policies, rather than relying solely on a 2035 EV sales mandate as a singular lever, including many designed to shift people out of personal passenger vehicles in favour of other modes of transportation. 

These could include massive investment in public transit – subways, commuter trains, buses – as well as the redesign of cities to allow for more trips to be taken via active modes such as bicycles or on foot. They could also include strategies such as telecommuting, a shift already spotlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“EVs really do reduce emissions, which are linked to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local studies, but they don’t get us out of having to do the things we already know we need to do,” says MacLean. “We need to rethink our behaviours, the design of our cities, and even aspects of our culture. Everybody has to take responsibility for this.” 

The research received support from the Hatch Graduate Scholarship for Sustainable Energy Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EV battery supply strategies weigh in-house cell manufacturing against supplier contracts, optimizing costs, scale, and supply-chain resilience for electric vehicles. Automakers like Tesla, GM-LG Chem, VW-Northvolt, and Ford balance gigafactories, joint ventures, and procurement risks.

Key Points

How automakers secure EV battery cells by balancing cost, scale, tech risk, and supply-chain control to meet demand.

✅ In-source cells via gigafactories, JVs, and proprietary chemistries

✅ Contract with LG Chem, Panasonic, CATL, SKI to diversify supply

✅ Manage costs, logistics, IP, and technology obsolescence risks

Auto makers, pumping billions of dollars into developing electric cars, are now facing a critical inflection point as they decide whether to get more involved with manufacturing the core batteries or buy them from others.

Batteries are one of an electric vehicle’s most expensive components, accounting for between a quarter and a third of the car’s value. Driving down their cost is key to profitability, executives say.

But whereas the internal combustion engine traditionally has been engineered and built by auto makers themselves, battery production for electric cars is dominated by Asian electronics and chemical firms, such as LG Chem Ltd. and Panasonic Corp. , and newcomers like China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co.

California, the U.S.’s largest car market, said last month it would end the sale of new gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger cars by 2035, putting pressure on the auto industry to accelerate its shift to electric vehicles in the coming years.

The race to lock in supplies for electric cars has auto makers taking varied paths, with growing Canada-U.S. collaboration across supply chains.

While most make the battery pack, a large metal enclosure often lining the bottom of the car, they also need the cells that are bundled together to form the core electricity storage.

Tesla several years ago opened its Gigafactory in Nevada to make batteries with Panasonic, which in the shared space would produce cells for the packs. The electric-car maker wanted to secure production specifically for its own models and lower manufacturing and logistics costs.

Now it is looking to in-source more of that production.

While Tesla will continue to buy cells from Panasonic and other suppliers, it is also working on its own cell technology and production capabilities, aiming for cheaper, more powerful batteries to ensure it can keep up with demand for its cars, said Chief Executive Elon Musk last month.

Following Tesla’s lead, General Motors Co. and South Korea’s LG Chem are putting $2.3 billion into a nearly 3-million-square-foot factory in Lordstown, Ohio, highlighting opportunities for Canada to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot as supply chains evolve, which GM says will eventually produce enough battery cells to outfit hundreds of thousands of cars each year.

In Europe, Volkswagen AG is taking a similar path, investing about $1 billion in Swedish battery startup Northvolt AB, including some funding to build a cell-manufacturing plant in Salzgitter, Germany, as part of a joint venture, and in North America, EV assembly deals in Canada are putting it in the race as well.

Others like Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are steering clear of manufacturing their own cells, with executives saying they prefer contracting with specialized battery makers.

Supply-chain disruptions, including lithium shortages, have already challenged some new model launches and put projects at risk, auto makers say.

For instance, Ford and VW have agreements in place with SK Innovation to supply battery cells for future electric-vehicle models. The South Korean company is building a factory in Georgia to help meet this demand, but a fight over trade secrets has put the plant’s future in jeopardy and could disrupt new model launches, both auto makers have said in legal filings.

GM executives say the risk of relying on suppliers has pushed them to produce their own battery cells, albeit with LG Chem.

“We’ve got to be able to control our own destiny,” said Ken Morris, GM’s vice president of electric vehicles.

Bringing the manufacturing in house will give the company more control over the raw materials it purchases and the battery-cell chemistry, Mr. Morris said.

But establishing production, even in a joint venture, is a costly proposition, and it won’t necessarily ensure a timely supply of cells. There are also risks with making big investments on one battery technology because a breakthrough could make it obsolete.

Ford cites those factors in deciding against a similar investment for now.

The company sees the industry’s conventional model of contracting with independent suppliers to build parts as better suited to its battery-cell needs, Ford executive Hau Thai-Tang told analysts in August.

“We have the competitive tension with dealing with multiple suppliers, which allows us to drive the cost down,” Mr. Thai-Tang said, adding that the company expects to pay prices for cells in line with GM and Tesla.

Meanwhile, Ford can leave the capital-intensive task of conducting the research and setting up manufacturing facilities to the battery companies, Mr. Thai-Tang said.

Germany’s Daimler has tried both strategies.

The car company made its own lithium-ion cells through a subsidiary until 2015. But the capital required to scale up was better spent elsewhere, said Ola Källenius, Daimler’s chief executive officer.

The auto maker instead signed long-term supply agreements with Asian companies like Chinese battery-maker CATL and Farasis Energy (Ganzhou) Co., which Daimler invested in last year.

The company has said it is spending roughly $23.6 billion on purchase agreements but keeping its battery research in-house.

“Let’s rather put that capital into what we do best, cars,” Mr. Källenius said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Gas Car Ban 2035 signals a shift to electric vehicles, raising grid reliability concerns, charging demand, and renewable energy challenges across solar, wind, and storage, amid rolling blackouts and carbon-free power mandates.

Key Points

An order ending new gasoline car sales by 2035 in California, accelerating EV adoption and pressuring the power grid.

✅ 25% EV fleet could add 232.5 GWh/day charging demand by 2040

✅ Solar and wind intermittency strains nighttime home charging

✅ Grid upgrades, storage, and load management become critical

On September 23, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that will ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars in the Golden State by 2035. Ignoring the hard lessons of this past summer, when California’s solar- and wind-reliant electric grid underwent rolling blackouts, Newsom now adds a huge new burden to the grid in the form of electric vehicle charging, underscoring the need for a much bigger grid to meet demand. If California officials follow through and enforce Newsom’s order, the result will be a green new car version of a train wreck.

In parallel, the state is moving on fleet transitions, allowing electric school buses only from 2035, which further adds to charging demand.

Let’s run some numbers. According to Statista, there are more than 15 million vehicles registered in California. Per the U.S. Department of Energy, there are only 256,000 electric vehicles registered in the state—just 1.7 percent of all vehicles, a share that will challenge state power grids as adoption grows.

Using the Tesla Model3 mid-range model as a baseline for an electric car, you’ll need to use about 62 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of power to charge a standard range Model 3 battery to full capacity. It will take about eight hours to fully charge it at home using the standard Tesla NEMA 14-50 charger, a routine that has prompted questions about whether EVs could crash the grid by households statewide.

Now, let’s assume that by 2040, five years after the mandate takes effect, also assuming no major increase in the number of total vehicles, California manages to increase the number of electric vehicles to 25 percent of the total vehicles in the state. If each vehicle needs an average of 62 kilowatt-hours for a full charge, then the total charging power required daily would be 3,750,000 x 62 KWh, which equals 232,500,000 KWh, or 232.5 gigawatt-hours (GWh) daily.

Utility-scale California solar electric generation according to the energy.ca.gov puts utility-scale solar generation at about 30,000 GWh per year currently. Divide that by 365 days and we get 80 GWh/day, predicted to double, to 160 GWh /day. Even if we add homeowner rooftop solar, and falling prices for solar and home batteries in the wake of blackouts, about half the utility-scale, at 40 GWh/day we come up to 200 GW/h per day, still 32 GWh short of the charging demand for a 25% electric car fleet in California. Even if rooftop solar doubles by 2040, we are at break-even, with 240GWh of production during the day.

Bottom-line, under the most optimistic best-case scenario, where solar operates at 100% of rated capacity (it seldom does), it would take every single bit of the 2040 utility-scale solar and rooftop capacity just to charge the cars during the day. That leaves nothing left for air conditioning, appliances, lighting, etc. It would all go to charging the cars, and that’s during the day when solar production peaks.

But there’s a much bigger problem. Even a grade-schooler can figure out that solar energy doesn’t work at night, when most electric vehicles will be charging at homes, even as some officials look to EVs for grid stability through vehicle-to-grid strategies. So, where does Newsom think all this extra electric power is going to come from?

The wind? Wind power lags even further behind solar power. According to energy.gov, as of 2019, California had installed just 5.9 gigawatts of wind power generating capacity. This is because you need large amounts of land for wind farms, and not every place is suitable for high-return wind power.

In 2040, to keep the lights on with 25 percent of all vehicles in California being electric, while maintaining the state mandate requiring all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045, California would have to blanket the entire state with solar and wind farms. It’s an impossible scenario. And the problem of intermittent power and rolling blackouts would become much worse.

And it isn’t just me saying this. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees. In a letter sent by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to Gavin Newsom on September 28, Wheeler wrote:

“[It] begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today.

“The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences.”

California’s green new car wreck looms large on the horizon. Worse, can you imagine electric car owners’ nightmares when California power companies shut off the power for safety reasons during fire season? Try evacuating in your electric car when it has a dead battery.

Gavin Newsom’s “no more gasoline cars sold by 2035” edict isn’t practical, sustainable, or sensible, much like the 2035 EV mandate in Canada has been criticized by some observers. But isn’t that what we’ve come to expect with any and all of these Green New Deal-lite schemes?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News