Biden's Climate Law Is Working, and Not Working

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

Green Hydrogen for Steelmaking enables decarbonization in Germany by powering electrolyzers with wind turbines at Salzgitter. Partners Vestas, Avacon, and Linde support renewable hydrogen for iron ore reduction, cutting CO2 in heavy industry.

Key Points

Hydrogen from renewable-powered electrolysis replacing coal in iron ore reduction, cutting CO2 emissions from steelmaking

✅ 30 MW Vestas wind farm powers 2x1.25 MW electrolyzers.

✅ Salzgitter, Avacon, Linde link sectors to replace fossil fuels.

✅ Targets CO2 cuts in iron ore reduction and steel smelting.

A major green hydrogen facility in Germany has started operations, with those behind the project hoping it will help to decarbonize the energy-intensive steel industry in the years ahead. 

The "WindH2" project involves German steel giant Salzgitter, E.ON subsidiary Avacon and Linde, a firm specializing in engineering and industrial gases, and aligns with calls for hydrogen-ready power plants in Germany today.

Hydrogen can be produced in a number of ways. One method includes using electrolysis, with an electric current splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen, and advances in PEM hydrogen technology continue to improve efficiency worldwide.

If the electricity used in the process comes from a renewable source such as wind or solar, as underscored by recent German renewables gains, then it's termed "green" or "renewable" hydrogen.

The development in Germany is centered around seven new wind turbines operated by Avacon and two 1.25 megawatt (MW) electrolyzer units installed by Salzgitter Flachstahl, which is part of the wider Salzgitter Group. The facilities were presented to the public this week. 

The turbines, from Vestas, have a hub height of 169 meters and a combined capacity of 30 MW. All are located on premises of the Salzgitter Group, with three situated on the site of a steel mill in the city of Salzgitter, Lower Saxony, northwest Germany, where grid expansion woes can affect project timelines.

The hydrogen produced using renewables will be utilized in processes connected to the smelting of iron ore. Total costs for the project come to roughly 50 million euros (around $59.67 million), with the building of the electrolyzers subsidized by state-owned KfW, while a national net-zero roadmap could reduce electricity costs over time.

"Green gases have the wherewithal to become 'staple foodstuff' for the transition to alternative energies and make a considerable contribution to decarbonizing industry, mobility and heat," E.ON's CEO, Johannes Teyssen, said in a statement issued Thursday.

"The jointly realized project symbolizes a milestone on the path to virtually CO2 free production and demonstrates that fossil fuels can be replaced by intelligent cross-sector linking," he added.

According to the International Energy Agency, the iron and steel sector is responsible for 2.6 gigatonnes of direct carbon dioxide emissions each year, a figure that, in 2019, was greater than the direct emissions from sectors such as cement and chemicals. 

It adds that the steel sector is "the largest industrial consumer of coal, which provides around 75% of its energy demand."

The project in Germany is not unique in focusing on the role green hydrogen could play in steel manufacturing.

Across Europe, projects are also exploring natural gas pipe storage to balance intermittent renewables and enable sector coupling.

H2 Green Steel, a Swedish firm backed by investors including Spotify founder Daniel Ek, plans to build a steel production facility in the north of the country that will be powered by what it describes as "the world's largest green hydrogen plant."

In an announcement last month the company said steel production would start in 2024 and be based in Sweden's Norrbotten region.

Other energy-intensive industries are also looking into the potential of green hydrogen, and examples such as Schott's green power shift show parallel decarbonization. A subsidiary of multinational building materials firm HeidelbergCement has, for example, worked with researchers from Swansea University to install and operate a green hydrogen demonstration unit at a site in the U.K.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nova Scotia Biomass Electricity Policy increases dispatchable renewable generation from Port Hawkesbury and Brooklyn Energy, raising MWh output while critics cite clearcutting, carbon emissions, high costs to ratepayers, and delays replacing Muskrat Falls hydro.

Key Points

Policy directing utilities to maximize biomass power as dispatchable renewable supply during hydro delays.

✅ Port Hawkesbury biomass output up 35% year over year

✅ Brooklyn Energy used as dispatchable renewable supply

✅ Critics cite clearcutting, emissions, high ratepayer costs

A boiler owned by Nova Scotia Power on the grounds of the Port Hawkesbury paper plant, whose discount power rate request has drawn attention, is burning 35% more woody biomass this year than last. 

The year-to-date figures show 126,810 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity was generated over the first nine months of 2021 compared to 93,934 MWh for the same period in 2020 and 65,891 MWh in 2019. 

The information is contained in monthly fuel cost reports Nova Scotia Power must make to the Utility and Review Board, which regulates how much consumers ultimately pay for electricity and has received a call for major grid changes in Nova Scotia.

Burning biomass  — which includes everything from low-grade pulpwood to bark, shavings, and wood chip waste from sawmills — for the purpose of generating electricity is only about 22% efficient, even as some coal stations have switched to biomass abroad. Nova Scotia Power’s boiler at Port Hawkesbury supplies about 3% of the total electricity used in the province. 

Citizens concerned about climate change have for years opposed the government classifying biomass as “renewable energy” and have echoed calls to reduce biomass use for electricity, because clearcutting, which releases carbon from the ground, remains the dominant form of harvesting on Crown and private land. That’s despite ongoing work to begin implementing 2018 recommendations from Professor Bill Lahey to move toward a more ecological approach. 

In May 2020, after it became obvious renewable hydroelectricity from Muskrat Falls was going to be delayed yet again, the McNeil government passed an Order-in-Council extending until December 2022 the deadline to generate 40% of electricity from renewable sources as it moved to increase wind and solar projects across Nova Scotia. 

To help with the shortfall, Nova Scotia Power was told to “maximize” its use of biomass at both the facility it owns in Port Hawkesbury and another one in Brooklyn owned by its parent company, Emera.

In a letter to Nova Scotia Power dated May 15, then-Energy Minister Derek Mombourquette, amid debate over independent energy planning, added: “Nova Scotia Power shall also maximize the use of dispatchable renewable electricity from its own facilities, as well as those of renewable electricity power producers in Nova Scotia (excluding COMFIT generation sources).” 

By definition, “dispatchable” excludes wind and hydro sources, which are not available 24/7, though a new attempt to harness the Bay of Fundy's tides is underway. Nova Scotia Power claims the only “dispatchable renewable electricity power producer” in the province is Brooklyn Energy, the 35 MW biomass plant near Liverpool. 

The government capped at $7 million a year how much electricity Nova Scotia Power could buy from its affiliate company. Critics of the deal — such as auditors hired by the regulator and the province’s consumer advocate — say electricity generated by Brooklyn is the most expensive power and question why the province would burden ratepayers with its purchase.

The answer became apparent in September 2020 when then-Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Kelliann Dean appeared before the legislature’s standing committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development to praise the Order-in-Council for helping rescue the forestry industry four months after the closure of the Northern Pulp mill. 

“The change to Renewable Energy Standards (May,2020) is enabling Nova Scotia Power to generate more electricity from wood chips and sawmill residuals by operating two biomass plants at capacity until electricity from Muskrat Falls comes onstream,” she said. “We are using all the policy levers at our disposal to support the sector.”

Nova Scotia Power is not required to report to the UARB how much electricity is being produced or how much biomass is being burned at Brooklyn Energy. The company pleads “commercial confidentiality” when asked by The Halifax Examiner. 

Nova Scotia Power does report how much it spends each month to buy power from independent producers — a small group which includes Brooklyn but excludes all wind farms. That dollar amount has also increased over the past year — from $15.9 million for 10 months ending October 2020 compared to $23.3 million for 10 months ending October 2021. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency makes it impossible to know exactly how much of that increase is attributable to purchasing more biomass.

Radio silence
The current Minister of Natural Resources and Renewable Energy ,Tory Rushton, has the authority to reduce the amount of biomass being burned to generate electricity and by extension, the rate of clearcutting.

With a stroke of the pen, the PC government of Tim Houston could issue another Order-in-Council capping the amount of metric tonnes that could be used in the boilers, or, direct Nova Scotia Power to use biomass only when it is the most economical fuel choice. 

But so far, Rushton has not responded to the Halifax Examiner’s question about whether he intends to make any change to stop “maximizing” the use of biomass to produce electricity.

 The Examiner isn’t the only one pushing the Minister for answers to difficult issues. At noon today, Citizens opposed to a controversial clearcut on Crown land near Rocky Point Lake in Digby County will stage a demonstration outside the Department of Natural Resources and Renewable Energy on Hollis Street. The protest led by members of Extinction Rebellion and the Healthy Forest Coalition is to pressure the government to take action to protect the habitat of the mainland moose, an endangered species that ranges overs the Crown land currently being cut by the Westfor consortium. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada EV Manufacturing Strategy catalyzes electric vehicles growth via batteries, mining, and supply chain localization, with Unifor deals, Ford and FCA retooling, and government incentives safeguarding jobs and competitiveness across the auto industry.

Key Points

A coordinated plan to scale EV assembly, batteries, and mining supply chains in Canada via union deals and incentives.

✅ Government-backed Ford and FCA retooling for EV models.

✅ Battery cell, module, and pack production localizes value.

✅ Mining-to-mobility links metals to the EV supply chain.

As of a month ago Canada was just a speck on the global EV manufacturing map. We couldn’t honestly claim to be in the global race to electrify the automotive sector, even as EV shortages and wait times signalled surging demand.

An analysis published earlier this year by the International Council on Clean Transportation and Pembina Institute found that while Canada ranked 12th globally in vehicle production, EV production was a miniscule 0.4 per cent of that total and well off the average of 2.3 per cent amongst auto producing nations.

As the report’s co-author Ben Sharpe noted, “Canada is a huge auto producer. But nobody is really shining a light on the fact that if Canada’s doesn’t quickly ramp up its EV production, the steady decline we’ve seen in auto manufacturing over the past 20 years is going to accelerate.”

National strategy
While the report received relatively scant attention outside industry circles, its thesis was not lost on the leadership of Unifor, the union representing Canadian autoworkers.

In an August op-ed, Unifor national president Jerry Dias laid out the table stakes: “Global automakers are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into electric vehicle investments, but no major programs are landing in Canada. Without a comprehensive national auto strategy, and active government engagement, the future is dim … securing our industry’s future requires a much bigger made-in-Canada style effort. An effort that government must lead.”

And then he got busy at the negotiating table.

The result? All of a sudden Canada is (or rather, will be) on the EV assembly map, just as the market hits an EV inflection point globally on adoption trends.

Late last month, contract negotiations between Unifor and Ford produced the Ford Oakville deal that will see $2 billion — including $590 million from the federal and Ontario governments ($295 million each) — invested towards production of five EV models in Oakville, Ont.

Three weeks later, Unifor reached a similar agreement with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles on a $1.5-billion investment, including retooling, to accommodate production of both a plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicle (including at least one additional model). 

Workforce implications
The primary motivation for Unifor in pushing for EVs in contract negotiations is, at minimum, preserving jobs — if not creating them. Unifor estimates that retooling the Ford plant in Oakville will save 3,000 of the 3,400 jobs there, contributing to Ontario's EV jobs boom as the transition accelerates. However, as VW CEO Herbert Diess has noted, “The reality is that building an electric car involves some 30 per cent less effort than one powered by an internal combustion engine.”

So, when it comes to the relationship between jobs and EVs, at first glance it might not seem to be a great news story. What exactly are the workforce implications?

To answer this question, and aid automakers and their suppliers in navigating the transition to EV production, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has done a study on the evolution of labour requirements along the automotive value chain. And the results, it turns out, are both illuminating and encouraging — so long as you look across the full value chain.

Common wisdom “inaccurate”
The study provides an in-depth unpacking of the similarities and differences between manufacturing an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle versus a battery EV (BEV), and in doing so it arrives at a surprising conclusion: “The common wisdom that BEVs are less labor intensive in assembly stages than traditional vehicles is inaccurate.” 

BCG’s analysis modeled how many labour hours were required to build an ICE vehicle versus a BEV, including the distribution of labour value across the automotive value chain.

While ICE vehicles require more labour associated with components, engine, motor and transmission assembly and installation, BEVs require the addition of battery manufacturing (cell production and module and battery pack assembly) and an increase in assembly-related labour. Meanwhile, labour requirements for press, body and paint shops don’t differ at all. Put that all together and labour requirements for BEVs are comparable to those of ICE vehicles when viewed across the full value chain.

Value chain shifting to parts suppliers
However, as BCG notes, this similarity not only masks, but even magnifies, a significant change that was already underway in the distribution of labour value across the value chain — an accelerating shift to parts suppliers.

This trend is a key reason why the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association launched Project Arrow earlier this year, and just unveiled the winner of the EV concept design that will ultimately become a full-build, 100 per cent Canadian-equipped zero-emission concept vehicle. The project is a showcase for Canadian automotive SMEs.

The bulk of the value shift is into battery cell manufacturing, which is dominated by Asian players. In light of this, both the EU and UK are working hard to devise strategies to secure battery cell manufacturing, including projects like a Niagara Region battery plant that signal momentum, and hence capture this value domestically. Canada must now do the same — and in the process, capitalize on the unique opportunity we have buried underground: the metals and minerals needed for batteries.

The federal government is well aware of this opportunity, which Minister of Industry, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains has coined “mines to mobility.” But we’re playing catch up, and the window to effectively position to capture this opportunity will close quickly.

Cooperation and coordination needed
As Unifor’s Dias noted in an interview with Electric Autonomy after the FCA deal, the scale of the opportunity extends beyond the assembly plants in Oakville and Windsor: “This is about putting workers back in our steel plants. This is about making batteries. This is about saying to aluminum workers in Quebec and B.C. … to lithium workers in Quebec … cobalt workers in Northern Ontario, you’re going to be a part of the solution…It is a transformative time. … We’re on the cusp of leading globally for where this incredible industry is going.”

With their role in securing Ford’s EV production commitment, the federal and Ontario governments made clear that they understand the potential that EVs offer Canada, including how to capitalize on the U.S. auto sector's pivot as supply chains evolve, and their role in capitalizing on this opportunity.

But to ultimately succeed will require more than an open chequebook, it will take a coordinated industrial strategy that spans the full automotive value chain and extends beyond it into batteries and even mining, alongside Canada-U.S. collaboration to align supply chains. This will require effective cooperation and coordination between governments and across several industrial sectors and their associations.

Together they are Team Canada’s pit crew in the global EV race. How we fare will depend on how efficiently and effectively that crew works together. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Utility-Controlled EV Charging shapes who builds charging stations as utilities, regulators, and private networks compete over infrastructure, grid upgrades, and pricing, impacting ratepayers, competition, and EV adoption across states seeking cleaner transport.

Key Points

Utility-controlled EV charging is utilities building charging networks affecting rates, competition and grid costs.

✅ Regulated investment may raise rates before broader savings.

✅ Private firms warn monopolies stifle competition and innovation.

✅ Regulators balance access, equity, and grid upgrade needs.

Electric vehicles are widely seen as the automobile industry’s future, but a battle is unfolding in states across America over who should control the charging stations that could gradually replace fuel pumps.

From Exelon Corp. to Southern California Edison, utilities have sought regulatory approval to invest millions of dollars in upgrading their infrastructure as state power grids adapt to increased charging demand, and, in some cases, to own and operate chargers.

The proposals are sparking concerns from consumer advocates about higher electric rates and oil companies about subsidizing rivals. They are also drawing opposition from startups that say the successors to gas stations should be open to private-sector competition, not controlled by monopoly utilities.

That debate is playing out in regulatory commissions throughout the U.S. as states and utilities promote wider adoption of electric vehicles. At stake are charging infrastructure investments expected to total more than $13 billion over the next five years, as an American EV boom accelerates, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. That would cover roughly 3.2 million charging outlets.

Calvin Butler Jr., who leads Exelon’s utilities business, said many states have grown more open to the idea of utilities becoming bigger players in charging as electric vehicles have struggled to take off in the U.S., where they make up only around 2% of new car sales.

“When the utilities are engaged, there’s quicker adoption because the infrastructure is there,” he said.

Major auto makers including General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. are accelerating production of electric vehicles, and models like Tesla’s Model 3 are shaping utility planning, and a number of states have set ambitious EV goals—most recently California, which aims to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. But a patchy charging-station network remains a huge impediment to mass EV adoption.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has called for building more than 500,000 new public charging outlets in a decade as part of his plan to combat climate change, amid Biden’s push to electrify the transportation sector. But exactly how that would happen is unclear. The U.S. currently has fewer than 100,000 public outlets, according to the Energy Department. President Trump, who has weakened federal tailpipe emissions targets, hasn’t put forward an electric-vehicle charging plan, though he backed a 2019 transportation bill that would have provided $1 billion in grants to build alternative fueling infrastructure, including for electric vehicles.

Charging access currently varies widely by state, as does utility involvement, with many utilities bullish course on EV charging to support growth, which can range from providing rebates on home chargers to preparing sites for public charging—and even owning and operating the equipment needed to juice up electric vehicles.

As of September, regulators in 24 states had signed off on roughly $2.6 billion of utility investment in transportation electrification, according to Atlas Public Policy, a Washington, D.C., policy firm. More than half of that spending was authorized in California, where electric vehicle adoption is highest.

Nearly a decade ago, California blocked utilities from owning most charging equipment, citing concerns about potentially stifling competition. But the nation’s most populous state reversed course in 2014, seeking to spur electrification.

Regulators across the country have since been wrestling with similar questions, generating a patchwork of rules.

Maryland regulators signed off last year on a pilot program allowing subsidiaries of Exelon and FirstEnergy Corp. to own and operate public charging stations on government property, provided that the drivers who use them cover at least some of the costs.

Months later, the District of Columbia rejected an Exelon subsidiary’s request to own public chargers, saying independent charging companies had it covered.

Some charging firms argue utilities shouldn’t be given monopolies on car charging, though they might need to play a role in connecting rural customers and building stations where they would otherwise be uneconomical.

“Maybe the utility should be the supplier of last resort,” said Cathy Zoi, chief executive of charging network EVgo Services LLC, which operates more than 800 charging stations in 34 states.

Utility charging investments generally are expected to raise customers’ electricity bills, at least initially. California recently approved the largest charging program by a single utility to date: a $436 million initiative by Southern California Edison, an arm of Edison International, as the state also explores grid stability opportunities from EVs. The company said it expects the program to increase the average residential customer’s bill by around 50 cents a month.

But utilities and other advocates of electrification point to studies indicating greater EV adoption could help reduce electricity rates over time, by giving utilities more revenue to help cover system upgrades.

Proponents of having utilities build charging networks also argue that they have the scale to do so more quickly, which would lead to faster EV adoption and environmental improvements such as lower greenhouse gas emissions and cleaner air. While the investments most directly help EV owners, “they accrue immediate benefits for everyone,” said Jill Anderson, a Southern California Edison senior vice president.

Some consumer advocates are wary of approving extensive utility investment in charging, citing the cost to ratepayers.

“It’s like, ‘Pay me now, and maybe someday your rates will be less,’” said Stefanie Brand, who advocates on behalf of ratepayers for the state of New Jersey, where regulators have yet to sign off on any utility proposals to invest in electric vehicle charging. “I don’t think it makes sense to build it hoping that they will come.”

Groups representing oil-and-gas companies, which stand to lose market share as people embrace electric vehicles, also have criticized utility charging proposals.

“These utilities should not be able to use their monopoly power to use all of their customers’ resources to build investments that definitely won’t benefit everybody, and may or may not be economical at this point,” said Derrick Morgan, who leads federal and regulatory affairs at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a trade organization.

Utility executives said their companies have long been used to further government policy objectives deemed to be in the public interest, drawing on lessons from 2021 to guide next steps, such as improving energy efficiency.

“This isn’t just about letting market forces work,” said Mike Calviou, senior vice president for strategy and regulation at National Grid PLC’s U.S. division.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

North Sea Offshore Wind Farms will deliver 150 GW by 2050 as EU partners scale renewable energy, offshore turbines, grid interconnectors, and REPowerEU goals to cut emissions, boost energy security, and reduce Russian fossil dependence.

Key Points

A joint EU initiative to build 150 GW of offshore wind by 2050, advancing REPowerEU, decarbonization, and energy security.

✅ Targets at least 150 GW of offshore wind by 2050

✅ Backed by Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark

✅ Aligns with REPowerEU, grid integration, and emissions cuts

Four European Union countries plan to build North Sea wind farms capable of producing at least 150 gigawatts of energy by 2050 to help cut carbon emissions that cause climate change, with EU wind and solar surpassing gas last year, Danish media have reported.

Under the plan, wind turbines would be raised off the coasts of Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, where a recent green power record highlighted strong winds, daily Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten said.

The project would mean a tenfold increase in the EU's current offshore wind capacity, underscoring how renewables are crowding out gas across Europe today.

“The North Sea can do a lot," Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen told the newspaper, adding the close cooperation between the four EU nations "must start now.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo are scheduled to attend a North Sea Summit on Wednesday in Esbjerg, 260 kilometers (162 miles) west of Copenhagen.

In Brussels, the European Commission moved Wednesday to jump-start plans for the whole 27-nation EU to abandon Russian energy amid the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. The commission proposed a nearly 300 billion-euro ($315 billion) package that includes more efficient use of fuels and a faster rollout of renewable power, even as stunted hydro and nuclear output may hobble recovery efforts.

The investment initiative by the EU's executive arm is meant to help the bloc start weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels this year, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during the transition. The goal is to deprive Russia, the EU’s main supplier of oil, natural gas and coal, of tens of billions in revenue and strengthen EU climate policies.

“We are taking our ambition to yet another level to make sure that we become independent from Russian fossil fuels as quickly as possible,” von der Leyen said in Brussels when announcing the package, dubbed REPowerEU.

The EU has pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 55% compared with 1990 levels by 2030, and to get to net zero emissions by 2050, with a recent German renewables milestone underscoring the pace of change.

The European Commission has set an overall target of generating 300 gigawatts of offshore energy of by 2050, though grid expansion challenges in Germany highlight hurdles.

Along with climate change, the war in Ukraine has made EU nations eager to reduce their dependency on Russian natural gas and oil. In 2021, the EU imported roughly 40% of its gas and 25% of its oil from Russia.

At a March 11 summit, EU leaders agreed in principle to phase out Russian gas, oil and coal imports by 2027.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News