Arvato commissions first solar power plant

Electric Vehicle Ownership Costs include lower maintenance, repair, and fuel expenses; Consumer Reports shows BEV and PHEV TCO beats ICE over 200,000 miles, with per-mile savings compounding through electricity prices and reduced service.

Key Points

Lifetime EV expenses, typically lower than ICE, due to cheaper electricity, reduced maintenance, and fewer repairs.

✅ BEV: $0.012/mi to 50k; $0.028/mi after; vs ICE up to $0.06/mi

✅ PHEV: $0.021/mi to 50k; $0.031/mi after; still below ICE

✅ Savings increase over 200k miles from fuel and service reductions

Electric vehicles are a relatively new technology, and the EV age is arriving ahead of schedule today. Even though we technically saw the first battery-powered vehicles more than 100 years ago, they haven’t really become viable transportation in the modern world until recently, and they are greener than ever in all 50 states as the grid improves.

As viable as they may now be, however, it still seems they’re unarguably more expensive than their conventional internal-combustion counterparts, prompting many to ask whether it’s time to buy an electric car today. Well, until now.

Lower maintenence costs and the lower price of electricity versus gasoline (see the typical cost to charge an electric vehicle in most regions) actually make electric cars much cheaper in the long run, despite their often higher purchase price, according to a new survey by Consumer Reports. The information was collected using annual reliability surveys conducted by CR in 2019 and 2020.

In the first 50,000 miles (80,500 km), battery electric vehicles cost just US$0.012 per mile for maintenence and repairs, while plug-in hybrid models bump that number up to USD$0.021. Compare these numbers to the typical USD$0.028 cost for internal combustion vehicles, and it becomes clear the more you drive, the more you will save, and across the U.S. plug-ins logged 19 billion electric miles in 2021 to prove the point. After 50,000 miles, the costs for BEV and PHEV vehicles is US$0.028 and US$0.031 respectively, while ICE vehicles jump to US$0.06 per mile.

To put it more practically, if you chose to buy a Model 3 instead of a BMW 330i, you’d see a total US$17,600 in savings over the lifetime of the vehicle, aligning with evidence that EVs are better for the planet and your budget as well, based on average driving. In the SUV sector, buying a Tesla Model Y instead of a Lexus crossover would save US$13,400 (provided the former’s roof doesn’t fly off) and buying a Nissan Leaf over a Honda Civic would save US$6,000 over the lifetime of the vehicles.

CR defines the vehicle’s “lifetime” as 200,000 miles (320,000 km). Ergo the final caveat: while it sounds like driving electric means big savings, you might only see those returns after quite a long period of ownership, though some forecasts suggest that within a decade adoption will be nearly universal for many drivers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

OEB Energy Storage Integration advances DERs and battery storage through CDM guidelines, streamlined connection requirements, IESO-aligned billing, grid modernization incentives, and the Innovation Sandbox, providing regulatory clarity and consumer value across Ontario's electricity system.

Key Points

A suite of OEB initiatives enabling storage and DERs via modern rules, cost recovery, billing reforms, and pilots.

✅ Updated CDM guidelines recognize storage at all grid levels.

✅ Standardized connection rules for DERs effective Oct 1, 2022.

✅ Innovation Sandbox supports pilots and temporary regulatory relief.

The energy sector is in the midst of a significant transition, where energy storage is creating new opportunities to provide more cost-effective, reliable electricity service. The OEB recognizes it has a leadership role to play in providing certainty to the sector while delivering public value, and a responsibility to ensure that the wider impacts of any changes to the regulatory framework, including grid rule changes, are well understood. 

Accordingly, the OEB has led a host of initiatives to better enable the integration of storage resources, such as battery storage, where they provide value for consumers.

Energy storage integration – our journey 
We have supported the integration of energy storage by:

Incorporating energy storage in Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) Guidelines for electricity distributors. In December 2021, the OEB released updated CDM guidelines that, among other things, recognize storage – either behind-the-meter, at the distribution level or the transmission level – as a means of addressing specific system needs. They also provide options for distributor cost recovery, aligning with broader industrial electricity pricing discussions, where distributor CDM activities also earn revenues from the markets administered by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).
 
Modernizing, standardizing and streamlining connection requirements, as well as procedures for storage and other DERs, to help address Ontario's emerging supply crunch while improving project timelines. This was done through amendments to the Distribution System Code that take effect October 1, 2022, as part of our ongoing DER Connections Review.
 
Facilitating the adoption of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), which includes storage, to enhance value for consumers by considering lessons from BESS in New York efforts. In March 2021, we launched the Framework for Energy Innovation consultation to achieve that goal. A working group is reviewing issues related to DER adoption and integration. It is expected to deliver a report to the OEB by June 2022 with recommendations on how electricity distributors can assess the benefits and costs of DERs compared to traditional wires and poles, as well as incentives for distributors to adopt third-party DER solutions to meet system needs.
 
Examining the billing of energy storage facilities. A Generic Hearing on Uniform Transmission Rates is underway. In future phases, this proceeding is expected to examine the basis for billing energy storage facilities and thresholds for gross-load billing. Gross-load billing demand includes not just a customer’s net load, but typically any customer load served by behind-the-meter embedded generation/storage facilities larger than one megawatt (or two megawatts if the energy source is renewable).
 
Enabling electricity distributors to use storage to meet system needs. Through a Bulletin issued in August 2020, we gave assurance that behind-the-meter storage assets may be considered a distribution activity if the main purpose is to remediate comparatively poor reliability of service.
 
Offering regulatory guidance in support of technology integration, including for storage, through our OEB Innovation Sandbox, as utilities see benefits across pilot deployments. Launched in 2019, the Innovation Sandbox can also provide temporary relief from a regulatory requirement to enable pilot projects to proceed. In January 2022, we unveiled Innovation Sandbox 2.0, which improves clarity and transparency while providing opportunities for additional dialogue. 
Addressing the barriers to storage is a collective effort and we extend our thanks to the sector organizations that have participated with us as we advanced these initiatives. In that regard, we provided an update to the IESO on these initiatives for a report it submitted to the Ministry of Energy, which is also exploring a hydrogen economy to support decarbonization.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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 Grid Readiness means utilities preparing the power grid for electric vehicles with smart charging, demand response, V2G, managed load, and renewable integration to maintain reliability, prevent outages, and optimize infrastructure investment.

Key Points

EV Grid Readiness is utilities' ability to support mass EV charging with smart load control, V2G, and grid upgrades.

✅ Managed charging shifts load off-peak to reduce stress and costs

✅ V2G enables EVs to supply power and balance renewables

✅ Utilities plan upgrades, rate design, and demand response

There's little doubt that the automobile industry is beginning the greatest transformation it has ever seen as the American EV boom gathers pace. The internal combustion engine, the heart of the automobile for over 100 years, is being phased out in favor of battery electric powered vehicles. 

Industry experts know that it's no longer a question of will electric vehicles take over, the only question remaining is how quickly will it happen. If electric vehicle adoption accelerates faster than many have predicted, can the power grid, and especially state power grids across the country, handle the additional load needed to "fuel" tens of millions of EVs?

There's been a lot of debate on this subject, with, not surprisingly, those opposed to EVs predicting doomsday scenarios including power outages, increased electricity rates, and frequent calls from utilities asking customers to stop charging their cars.

There have also been articles written that indicate the grid will be able to handle the increased power demand needed to fuel a fully electric transportation fleet. Some even explain how electric vehicles will actually help grid stability overall, not cause problems.

So we decided to go directly to the source to get answers. We reached out to two industry professionals that aren't just armchair experts. These are two of the many people in the country tasked with the assignment of making sure we don't have problems as more and more electric vehicles are added to the national fleet. 

"Let's be clear. No one is forcing anyone to stop charging their EV." - Eric Cahill, speaking about the recent request by a California utility to restrict unnecessary EV charging during peak demand hours when possible

Both Eric Cahill, who is the Strategic Business Planner for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in California, and John Markowitz, the Senior Director and Head of eMobility for the New York Power Authority agreed to recorded interviews so we could ask them if the grid will be ready for millions of EVs.  

Both Cahill and Markowitz explained that, while there will be challenges, they are confident that their respective districts will be ready for the additional power demand that electric vehicles will require. It's also important to note that the states that they work in, California and New York, with California expected to need a much bigger grid to support the transition, have both banned the sale of combustion vehicles past 2035. 

That's important because those states have the most aggressive timelines to transition to an all-electric fleet, and internationally, whether the UK grid can cope is a parallel question, so if they can provide enough power to handle the increased demand, other states should be able to also. 

We spoke to both Cahill and Markowitz for about thirty minutes each, so the video is about an hour long. We've added chapters for those that want to skip around and watch select topics. 

We asked both guests to explain what they believe some of the biggest challenges are, including how energy storage and mobile chargers could help, if 2035 is too aggressive of a timeline to ban combustion vehicles, and a number of other EV charging and grid-related questions. 

Neither of our guests seemed to indicate that they were worried about the grid crashing, or that 2035 was too soon to ban combustion vehicles. In fact, they both indicated that, since they know this is coming, they have already begun the planning process, with proper management in place to ensure the lights stay on and there are no major electricity disruptions caused by people charging their cars. 

So check out the video and let us know your thoughts. This has been a hot topic of discussion for many years now. Now that we've heard from the people in charge of providing us the power to charge our EVs, can we finally put the concerns to rest now? As always, leave your comments below; we want to hear your opinions as well.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. 2023 Utility-Scale Capacity Additions highlight surging solar power, expanding battery storage, wind projects, natural gas plants, and new nuclear reactors, boosting grid reliability in Texas and California with record planned installations.

Key Points

Planned grid expansions led by solar and battery storage, with wind, natural gas, and nuclear increasing U.S. capacity.

✅ 29.1 GW solar planned; Texas and California lead installations.

✅ 9.4 GW battery storage to more than double current capacity.

✅ Natural gas, wind, and 2.2 GW nuclear round out additions.

Developers plan to add 54.5 gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale electric-generating capacity to the U.S. power grid in 2023, according to our Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. More than half of this capacity will be solar power (54%), even as coal generation increase has been reported, followed by battery storage (17%).

Solar

U.S. utility-scale solar capacity has been rising rapidly EIA summer outlook since 2010. Despite its upward trend over the past decade 2018 milestone, additions of utility-scale solar capacity declined by 23% in 2022 compared with 2021. This drop in solar capacity additions was the result of supply chain disruptions and other pandemic-related challenges. We expect that some of those delayed 2022 projects will begin operating in 2023, when developers plan to install 29.1 GW of solar power in the United States. If all of this capacity comes online as planned, 2023 will have the most new utility-scale solar capacity added in a single year, more than doubling the current record (13.4 GW in 2021).

In 2023, the most new solar capacity, by far, will be in Texas (7.7 GW) and California (4.2 GW), together accounting for 41% of planned new solar capacity.

Battery storage

U.S. battery storage capacity has grown rapidly January generation jump over the past couple of years. In 2023, U.S. battery capacity will likely more than double. Developers have reported plans to add 9.4 GW of battery storage to the existing 8.8 GW of battery storage capacity.

Battery storage systems are increasingly installed with wind and solar power projects. Wind and solar are intermittent sources of generation; they only produce electricity when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Batteries can store excess electricity from wind and solar generators for later use. In 2023, we expect 71% of the new battery storage capacity will be in California and Texas, states with significant solar and wind capacity.

Natural gas

Developers plan to build 7.5 GW of new natural-gas fired capacity record natural gas output in 2023, 83% of which is from combined-cycle plants. The two largest natural gas plants expected to come online in 2023 are the 1,836 megawatt (MW) Guernsey Power Station in Ohio and the 1,214 MW CPV Three Rivers Energy Center in Illinois.

Wind

In 2023, developers plan to add 6.0 GW of utility-scale wind capacity, as renewables poised to eclipse coal in global power generation. Annual U.S. wind capacity additions have begun to slow, following record additions of more than 14 GW in both 2020 and 2021.

The most wind capacity will be added in Texas in 2023, at 2.0 GW. The only offshore wind capacity expected to come online this year is a 130.0 MW offshore windfarm in New York called South Fork Wind.

Nuclear

Two new nuclear reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia nuclear and net-zero are scheduled to come online in 2023, several years later than originally planned. The reactors, with a combined 2.2 GW of capacity, are the first new nuclear units built in the United States in more than 30 years.

Developers and power plant owners report planned additions to us in our annual and monthly electric generator surveys. In the annual survey, we ask respondents to provide planned online dates for generators coming online in the next five years. The monthly survey tracks the status of generators coming online based on reported in-service dates.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Biden Impact on Canadian Energy Exports highlights shifts in trade policy, tariffs, carbon pricing, and Keystone XL, with implications for aluminum, softwood lumber, electricity trade, fracking limits, and small modular nuclear reactors.

Key Points

How Biden-era trade, climate rules, and tariffs may reshape Canadian energy and exports.

✅ Reduced tariff volatility and friendlier trade policy toward allies

✅ Climate alignment: carbon pricing, clean power, cross-border electricity

✅ Potential gains for oil, gas, aluminum, and softwood lumber exporters

There is little doubt among industry associations, the Conference Board of Canada and C.D. Howe Institute that a Joe Biden White House will be better for Canadian resource and energy exporters – even Alberta’s beleaguered oil industry, despite Biden’s promise to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

The consensus among industry observers in the lead-up to the November 3 U.S. presidential election was that a re-elected Donald Trump would become even more pugnacious on trade and protectionism, putting electricity exports at risk for Canadian utilities, which would be bad for Canadian exporters. The Justin Trudeau government would likely come under increased pressure to lower Canadian business taxes to compete with Trump’s low-tax climate.

“A Joe Biden victory would likely lead to higher taxes for both corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay down the gigantic fiscal deficit that is currently running at plus-US$5 trillion,” the conference board concluded in a recent analysis.

On trade and tariffs, the conference board said: “Many but not all of these ongoing trade disputes would wither away under a Joe Biden administration. He would likely run a broad trade policy favouring strategic allies like Canada.

While Canadian industries like forestry and aluminum smelting benefited from strong demand and prices in the U.S. under Trump, the forced renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement failed end tariffs and duties on things like softwood lumber and aluminum ingots, even as Canadians backed tariffs on energy and minerals during the dispute.

The uncertainty over trade issues, and Trump’s tax cuts, which made Canada’s tax regime less competitive, have contributed to a period of low business investment in Canada during Trump's presidency.

“For Canada, we’ve seen a period, since this administration has been in power, where investment has eroded steadily,” conference board chief economist Pedro Antunes said. “We are not doing well at all, in terms of private capital investment in Canada.”

Alberta’s oil industry has been hit particularly hard, with a slew of divestments by big energy giants, and cancellations of major projects, like the $20 billion Frontier oilsands project, scrubbed by Teck Resources.

While domestic policies and global market forces are partly to blame for falling investments in Canada’s oil and gas sector, up until the pandemic hit, investment in oil and gas increased significantly in the U.S., while declining in Canada, during Trump’s first term.

Biden is also expected to level the playing field with respect to climate change policies. Canadian industries pay carbon taxes and face regulations that their counterparts in the U.S. don’t. That has disadvantaged energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like mines and pulp mills in Canada.

“With Biden in office, Canada will once again have a partner at the federal level in the states in the transition to a decarbonized economy,” said Josha MacNab, national policy director for the Pembina Institute.

Biden’s policies might also favour importing aluminum, cross-laminated timber, fuel cells and other lower-carbon products and commodities from Canada.

At least one observer believes that Canada’s oil and gas sector might benefit more from a Biden White House, despite Biden’s pledge to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

“I think Joe Biden could be very good for Alberta,” Christopher Sands, director of the Wilson International Center’s Canada Institute, said in a recent discussion hosted by the C.D. Howe Institute.

Sands added that the presidential permit Biden has promised to tear up on the Keystone XL pipeline project is a construction permit, not an operating permit.

“The segment of that pipeline that crosses the U.S.-Canada border, which is the only place that the presidential permit applies, has been built,” Sands said. “So I think that’s somewhat of an empty threat.”

He added that, if Biden bans fracking on federal lands, as he has promised, and implements other restrictions that make it more costly for American oil and gas producers, it might increase the demand for Canadian oil and gas in the U.S. The demand would be highest in the U.S. Midwest, which depends largely on Marcellus Shale production, notably in Pennsylvania, and Western Canada for its oil and gas.

One of the Canadian industries directly affected by the Trump administration was aluminum smelting, which is relevant for B.C. because Rio Tinto plc’s Kitimat smelter exports aluminum to the U.S.

Jean Simard, president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, said one of Trump’s legacies was the reactivation of a little-used mechanism – Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – to hit Canada and other countries, notably China, with import tariffs.

The 10 per cent tariffs on aluminum cost Canadian aluminum producers US$15 million in the month of August alone, Simard said.

The Trump administration eventually exempted Canadian aluminum exports from the tariffs, then reintroduced them, and then, one week before the election, exempted them again.

These on-again, off-again tariff threats create tremendous uncertainty, not just for Canadian producers, but also for U.S. buyers. That kind of uncertainty is likely to ease under a Biden presidency.

Simard said Biden’s track record suggests he is well-disposed towards Canada and less confrontational with allies and trade partners in general, and some in Washington have called for a stronger U.S.-Canada energy partnership as well.

Meanwhile, softwood lumber tariffs have been imposed by Democrats and Republicans alike. But there are compelling reasons for ending the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber war.

Home renovation and repair in the United States has done surprisingly well during the pandemic.

As a result of sawmill curtailments in the U.S. due to pandemic restrictions and high demand for lumber in the U.S. housing sector, North American lumbers prices broke records this summer, soaring as high as US$900 per thousand board feet.

“It shows that there’s very strong demand for our product,” said Susan Yurkovich, president of the Council of Forest Industries.

Ultimately, the duties Canadian lumber exporters pay are passed on to U.S. consumers.

Sands said Biden’s climate action pledges, including a clean electricity standard, could increase opportunities for trading electricity between Canada in the U.S., as the U.S. increasingly looks to Canada for green power, and could also be good for Canadian nuclear power technology.

Strong climate change policies necessarily result in an increased demand for low-carbon electricity, and advancing clean grids, which Canada has in abundance, thanks to both hydro and nuclear power.

“[Biden] does share the desire to act on climate change, but unlike some of his fellow party members who are more signed on to a Green New Deal, he’s open to pragmatic solutions that might get the job done quickly and efficiently,” Sands said.

“This is a huge opportunity for small, modular nuclear reactors, and Atomic Energy Canada has some great designs. There’s a real opportunity for a nuclear revival.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News