California's Looming Green New Car Wreck


gavin newsom

Electrical Testing & Commissioning of Power Systems

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 12 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$599
Coupon Price:
$499
Reserve Your Seat Today

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

Related News

UK Electric Vehicle Sales Surge to Record High

UK electric vehicle sales reached a record high in September, with battery and hybrid cars making up over half of new registrations. SMMT credits carmaker discounts, new models, and a £3,750 EV grant for driving strong demand across the UK market.

 

Why are UK Electric Vehicle Sales Surging to a Record High?

UK electric vehicle sales are surging to a record high because automakers are offering major discounts, more models are available than ever, and the government’s new £3,750 EV grant is making electric cars more affordable and appealing to both fleets and private buyers.

✅ BEV sales up nearly one-third in September

✅ Over half of all new cars are now electrified

✅ £3,750 EV grants boost consumer confidence

 

Electric vehicle (EV) sales in the United Kingdom reached a record high last month, marking a significant milestone in the country’s transition to cleaner transportation. According to the latest figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), sales of pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) surged by nearly one-third to 72,779 units in September, while plug-in hybrid registrations grew even faster.

The combined total of fully electric and hybrid vehicles accounted for more than half of all new car registrations, underscoring the growing appeal of electrified transport, alongside global EV market growth, among both businesses and private consumers. In total, 312,887 new vehicles were registered across the country — the strongest September performance since 2020, according to SMMT data.

SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said the surge in electrified vehicle sales showed that “electrified vehicles are powering market growth after a sluggish summer.” He credited carmaker incentives, a wider choice of models, and government support for helping accelerate adoption, though U.S. EV market share dipped in Q1 2024 by comparison. “Industry investment in electric vehicles is paying off,” Hawes added, even as he acknowledged that “consumer demand still trails ambition.”

The UK government’s new electric car grant scheme has played a significant role in the rebound. The program offers buyers discounts of up to £3,750 on eligible EVs priced under £37,000. So far, more than 20,000 motorists have benefited, with 36 models approved for reductions of at least £1,500. Participating manufacturers include Ford, Toyota, Vauxhall, and Citroën.

Ian Plummer, chief commercial officer at Autotrader, said the grant had given a “real lift to the market,” echoing fuel-crisis EV inquiry surge in the UK. He noted that “since July, enquiries for new electric vehicles on Autotrader are up by almost 50%. For models eligible for the grant, interest has more than doubled.”

While the majority of BEVs — about 71.4% — were purchased by companies and fleets, the number of private buyers has also been increasing. Zero-emission vehicles now account for more than one in five (22.1%) new car registrations so far in 2025, similar to France’s 20% EV share record, highlighting the growing mainstream appeal of electric mobility.

The surge comes amid a challenging backdrop for the automotive sector, even as U.S. EV sales soared into 2024 across the Atlantic. The UK car industry is still reeling from the effects of US trade tariffs and recent disruptions, such as Jaguar Land Rover’s production shutdown following a cyberattack. Despite these hurdles, the strong September figures have boosted confidence in the industry’s recovery trajectory, and EU EV share grew during lockdown months offers precedent for resilience.

Among individual models, the Kia Sportage, Ford Puma, and Nissan Qashqai led overall sales, while two Chinese vehicles — the Jaecoo 7 and BYD Seal U — entered the top ten, reflecting China’s growing footprint in the UK market. Analysts say the arrival of competitively priced Chinese EVs could further intensify competition and drive prices lower for consumers.

With electrified vehicles now dominating new registrations and fresh government incentives in place, industry observers believe the UK is gaining momentum toward its long-term net-zero goals. The challenge, however, remains converting business fleet enthusiasm into sustained private-buyer confidence through affordable models, with UK consumer price concerns still a factor, reliable charging infrastructure, and continued policy support.

 

Related Articles

 

View more

Court Sees If Church Solar Panels Break Electricity Monopoly

NC WARN Solar Case tests third-party solar rights as North Carolina Supreme Court reviews Utilities Commission fines over a Greensboro church's rooftop power deal, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly, onsite electricity sales, and potential rate impacts.

 

Key Points

A North Carolina Supreme Court test of third-party solar could weaken Duke Energy's monopoly and change utility rules.

✅ NC Supreme Court weighs Utilities Commission penalty on NC WARN

✅ Case could permit onsite third-party solar sales statewide

✅ Outcome may pressure Duke Energy's monopoly and rates

 

North Carolina's highest court is taking up a case that could force new competition on the state's electricity monopolies.

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider the Utilities Commission's decision to fine clean-energy advocacy group NC WARN for putting solar panels on a Greensboro church's rooftop and then charging it below-market rates for power.

The commission told NC WARN that it was producing electricity illegally and fined the group $60,000. The group said it was acting privately and appealed to the high court.

If the group prevails, it could put new pressure on Duke Energy's monopoly, which has seen an oversubscribed solar solicitation in recent procurements. State regulators say a ruling for NC WARN would allow companies to install solar equipment and sell power on site, shaving away customers and forcing Duke Energy to raise rates on everyone else.

#google#

That's because if NC WARN's deal with Faith Community Church is allowed, the precedent could open the door for others to lure away from Duke Energy, as debates over how solar owners are paid continue, "the customers with the highest profit potential, such as commercial and industrial customers with large energy needs and ample rooftop space," attorney Robert Josey Jr. wrote in a court filing.

Losing those power sales would force the country's No. 2 electricity company to make it up by charging remaining customers more to cover the cost of all of its power plants, transmission lines and repair crews, a dynamic echoed in New England's grid upgrade debates as solar grows, wrote Josey, an attorney for the Public Staff, the state's official utilities consumer advocate.

The dispute is whether NC WARN is producing electricity "for the public," which would mean it's intruding on the territory of the publicly regulated monopoly utility, or whether the move was allowed because it was a private power deal with the church alone.

 

NC WARN installed the church's power panels in 2015 as part of what it described as a test case, amid wider debates like Nova Scotia's delayed solar charge for customers, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly position to generate and sell electricity.

North Carolina was one of nine states that as of last year explicitly disallowed residential customers from buying electricity generated by solar panels on their roof from a third party that owns the system, even as Maryland opens solar subscriptions more broadly, according to the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. State law allows purchased or leased solar panels, but not payments simply for the power they generate.

NC WARN's goals included "reducing the effects of Duke Energy's monopoly control that has such negative impacts on power bills, clean air and water, and climate change," the church's pastor, Rev. Nelson Johnson, said in a statement the same day the clean-energy group asked state regulators to clear the plan.

Instead, the North Carolina Utilities Commission ruled the arrangement violated the state's system of legal electricity monopolies and hit the group with nearly $60,000 in fines, which would be suspended if the church's payments were refunded with interest and the solar equipment donated. The group has set aside the money and will donate the gear if it loses the Supreme Court case, NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said.

NC WARN's three-year agreement saw the group mount a rooftop solar array for which the church would pay about half the average retail electricity price, state officials said. The agreement states plainly that it is not a contract for the sale or lease of the $20,000 solar system, the church never owns the panels, and the low electricity price means its payback for the equipment would take 60 years, Josey wrote.

"Clearly, the only thing of value (the church) is obtaining for its payments under this agreement is the electricity created," he wrote.

In court filings, the group's attorneys have stuck to the argument that NC WARN isn't selling to the public because the deal involved a single customer only.

The deal "is not open to any other member of the public ... A private, bargained-for contract under which only one party receives electricity is not a sale of electricity 'to or for the public,' " attorney Matthew Quinn wrote to the court.

 

Related News

View more

Should California accelerate its 100% carbon-free electricity mandate?

California 100% Clean Energy by 2030 proposes accelerating SB 100 with solar, wind, offshore wind, and battery storage to decarbonize the grid, enhance reliability, and reduce blackouts, leveraging transmission upgrades and long-duration storage solutions.

 

Key Points

Proposal to accelerate SB 100 to 2030, delivering a carbon-free grid via renewables, storage, and new transmission.

✅ Accelerates SB 100 to a 2030 carbon-free electricity target

✅ Scales solar, wind, offshore wind, and battery storage capacity

✅ Requires transmission build-out and demand response for reliability

 

Amid a spate of wildfires that have covered large portions of California with unhealthy air, an environmental group that frequently lobbies the Legislature in Sacramento is calling on the state to accelerate by 15 years California's commitment to derive 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources.

But skeptics point to last month's pair of rolling blackouts and say moving up the mandate would be too risky.

"Once again, California is experiencing some of the worst that climate change has to offer, whether it's horrendous air quality, whether it's wildfires, whether it's scorching heat," said Dan Jacobson, state director of Environment California. "This should not be the new normal and we shouldn't allow this to become normal."

Signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018, Senate Bill 100 commits California by 2045 to use only sources of energy that produce no greenhouse gas emissions to power the electric grid, a target that echoes Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan now under consideration.

Implemented through the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard, SB 100 mandates 60 percent of the state's power will come from renewable sources such as solar and wind within the next 10 years. By 2045, the remaining 40 percent can come from other zero-carbon sources, such as large hydroelectric dams, a strategy aligned with Canada's electricity decarbonization efforts toward climate pledges.

SB 100 also requires three state agencies _ the California Energy Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Air Resources Board _ to send a report to the Legislature reviewing various aspects of the legislation.

The topics include scenarios in which SB 100's requirements can be accelerated. Following an Energy Commission workshop earlier this month, Environment California sent a six-page note to all three agencies urging a 100 percent clean energy standard by 2030.

The group pointed to comments by Gov. Gavin Newsom after he toured the devastation in Butte County caused by the North Complex fire.

"Across the entire spectrum, our (state) goals are inadequate to the reality we are experiencing," Newsom said Sept. 11 at the Oroville State Recreation Area.

Newsom "wants to look at his climate policies and see what he can accelerate," Jacobson said. "And we want to encourage him to take a look at going to 100 percent by 2030."

Jacobson said Newsom cam change the policy by issuing an executive order but "it would probably take some legislative action" to codify it.

However, Assemblyman Jim Cooper, a Democrat from the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove, is not on board.

"I think someday we're going to be there but we can't move to all renewable sources right now," Cooper said. "It doesn't work. We've got all these burned-out areas that depend upon electricity. How is that working out? They don't have it."

In mid-August, California experienced statewide rolling blackouts for the first time since 2001.

The California Independent System Operator _ which manages the electric grid for about 80 percent of the state _ ordered utilities to ratchet back power, fearing the grid did not have enough supply to match a surge in demand as people cranked up their air conditioners during a stubborn heat wave that lingered over the West.

The outages affected about 400,000 California homes and businesses for more than an hour on Aug. 14 and 200,000 customers for about 20 minutes on Aug. 15.

The grid operator, known as the CAISO for short, avoided two additional days of blackouts in August and two more in September thanks to household utility customers and large energy users scaling back demand.

CAISO Chief Executive Officer Steve Berberich said the outages were not due to renewable energy sources in California's power mix. "This was a matter of running out of capacity to serve load" across all hours, Berberich told the Los Angeles Times.

California has plenty of renewable resources _ especially solar power _ during the day. The challenge comes when solar production rapidly declines as the sun goes down, especially between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. in what grid operators call the "net load peak."

The loss of those megawatts of generation has to be replaced by other sources. And in an electric grid, system operators have to balance supply and demand instantaneously, generating every kilowatt that is demanded by customers who expect their lighting/heating/air conditioning to come on the moment they flip a switch.

Two weeks after the rotating outages, the State Water Resources Control Board voted to extend the lives of four natural gas plants in the Los Angeles area. Natural gas accounts for the largest single source of California's power mix _ 34.23 percent. But natural gas is a fossil fuel, not a carbon-free resource.

Jacobson said moving the mandate to 2030 can be achieved by more rapid deployment of renewable sources across the state.

The Public Utilities Commission has already directed power companies to ramp up capacity for energy storage, such as lithium-ion batteries that can be used when solar production falls off.

Long-term storage is another option. That includes pumped hydro projects in which hydroelectric facilities pump water from one reservoir up to another and then release it. The ensuing rush of water generates electricity when the grid needs it.

Environment California also pointed to offshore wind projects along the coast of Central and Northern California that it estimates could generate as much as 3 gigawatts of power by 2030 and 10 gigawatts by 2040. Offshore wind supporters say its potential is much greater than land-based wind farms because ocean breezes are stronger and steadier.

Gary Ackerman, a utilities and energy consultant with more than four decades of experience in power issues affecting states in the West, said the 2045 mandate was "an unwise policy to begin with" and to accommodate a "swift transition (to 2030), you're going to put the entire grid and everybody in it at risk."

But Ackerman's larger concern is whether enough transmission lines can be constructed in California to bring the electricity where it needs to go.

"I believe Californians consider transmission lines in their backyard about the same way they think about low-income housing _ it's great to have, but not in my backyard," Ackerman said. "The state is not prepared to build the infrastructure that will allow this grandiose build-out."

Cooper said he worries about how much it will cost the average utility customer, especially low and middle-income households. The average retail price for electricity in California is 16.58 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 10.53 nationally, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

"What's sad is, we've had 110-degree days and there are people up here in the Central Valley that never turned their air conditioners on because they can't afford that bill," Cooper said.

Jacobson said the utilities commission can intervene if costs get too high. He also pointed to a recent study from the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley that predicted the U.S. can deliver 90 percent clean, carbon-free electric grid by 2035 that is reliable and at no extra cost in consumers' bills.

"Every time we wait and say, 'Oh, what about the cost? Is it going to be too expensive?' we're just making the cost unbearable for our kids and grandkids," Jacobson said. "They're the ones who are going to pay the billions of dollars for all the remediation that has to happen ... What's it going to cost if we do nothing, or don't go fast enough?"

The joint agency report on SB 100 from the Energy Commission, the Public Utilities Commission and the Air Resources Board is due at the beginning of next year.

 

Related News

View more

How to retrofit a condo with chargers for a world of electric cars

Condo EV charging retrofits face strata approval thresholds, installation costs, and limited electrical capacity, but government rebates, subsidies, and smart billing systems can improve ROI, property value, and feasibility amid electrician shortages and infrastructure constraints.

 

Key Points

Condo EV charging retrofits equip multiunit parking with EV chargers, balancing costs, bylaws, capacity, and rebates.

✅ Requires owner approval (e.g., 75% in B.C.) and clear bylaws

✅ Leverage rebates, subsidies, and load management to cut costs

✅ Plan billing, capacity, and phased installation to increase ROI

 

Retrofitting an existing multiunit residential building with electric vehicle charging stations is a complex and costly exercise, as high-rise EV charging challenges in MURBs demonstrate, even after subsidies, but the biggest hurdle to adoption may be getting enough condo owners on board.

British Columbia, for example, offers a range of provincial government subsidies to help condo corporations (referred to in B.C. as stratas) with everything from the initial research to installing the chargers. But according to provincial strata law, three-quarters of owners must support the plan before it is implemented, though new strata EV legislation could make approvals easier in some jurisdictions.

“The largest challenge is getting that 75-per-cent majority approval to go ahead,” says EV charging specialist Patrick Breuer with ChargeFwd Ltd., a Vancouver-based sustainable transport consultancy.

Chris Brunner, a strata president in Vancouver, recently upgraded all the building’s parking stalls for EV charging. His biggest challenge was getting the strata’s investment owners, who don’t live in the building and were not interested in spending money, to support the project.

“We had to sell it in two ways,” Mr. Brunner says. “First, that there’s going to be a return on investment, including vehicle-to-building benefits that support savings and grid stability, and second, that there will come a time when this will be required. And if we do it now, taking advantage of the generous rebates and avoiding price increases for expertise and materials, we’ll be ahead of the curve.”

Once the owners have voted in favour, the condo board can begin the planning process and start looking for rebates. The B.C. government will provide a rebate of up to 75 per cent for the consulting phase, with additional provincial rebates available through current programs. It’s referred to as an “EV Ready” plan, which is a professionally prepared document that describes how to implement EV charging fairly, and estimates its cost.

Once a condo has completed the EV Ready plan, it becomes eligible for other rebates, such as the EV Ready Infrastructure subsidy, which will bring power to each individual parking stall through an energized outlet. This is rebated at 50 per cent of expenses, up to $600 a stall.

There are further rebates of up to 75 per cent for installing the charging stations themselves, and B.C. charging rebates extend to home and workplace programs, too. The program is administered by BC Hydro, a Crown corporation that receives funding in annual increments. “Right now, it’s funded until March 31, 2023,” Mr. Breuer says.

“Realtors are valuing [individual charging stations] from $2,000 to $10,000,” he said. The demand for installing EV chargers in buildings has grown to such an extent that it’s hard to find qualified electricians, Mr. Breuer says.

However, even with subsidies, there are some buildings where it doesn’t make financial sense to retrofit them. “If you have to core through thin floors or there’s a big parkade with a large voltage drop, it isn’t financially viable,” Mr. Breuer says. “We do a lot of EV Ready plans, but not all the projects can go ahead.”

For many people, it’s resistance to the unknown that is preventing them from voting for the retrofit, according to Carter Li of Toronto-based Swtch Energy Inc., which provides charging in high-density urban settings. It has done retrofits on 200 multiunit residential buildings in the Toronto area, and Calgary condo charging efforts show similar momentum in other cities, too. “They’re worried about paying for someone else’s electricity,” he says. Selling owners on the idea requires educating them about how the billing will work, maximizing electrical capacity to keep costs down, using government subsidies and the anticipated boost in property value.

Ontario currently does not provide any subsidies for retrofitting condos for EV charging. However, there is a stipulation under the Condominium Act that if owners request EV charging be installed and provide a condo board with sufficient documentation, an assessment will be conducted.

When Jeremy Benning was on the board of his Toronto condo in 2018, a few residents inquired about installing EV charging. A committee of owners did the legwork, and found a company that could do the infrastructure installation as well as set up accounts for individual billing purposes. Residents were surveyed a number of times before going ahead with the installation.

Mr. Benning estimates it cost about $40,000 to install two electrical subpanels to accommodate EV chargers in 20 parking spaces. Although the condo corporation paid the money up front out of its operating budget, everyone who ordered a charger will pay back their share over time. Many who do not even own an EV have opted to add a valuable frill to their unit.

The board considered applying for a subsidy from Natural Resources Canada, but it would require a public charger in the visitor parking lot. “The rebate wasn’t enough to pay for the cost of putting in that charging station,” Mr. Benning says. “Also, you have to maintain it, and what if it gets vandalized? It wasn’t worth it.”

Quebec’s Roulez Vert (Ride Green) program offers extensive provincial rebates and incentives for retrofitting condo buildings. If a single condo owner wants to install an EV charger, the government will refund up to 50 per cent of the installation cost or up to $5,000, whichever is less.

Otherwise, a property manager can qualify for a maximum of $25,000 a year to retrofit a building and can sometimes complete the work in stages. “They may do the first installation in one year, and then continue the next year,” says Léo Viger-Bernard of Recharge Véhicule Électrique (RVE). Recently, the Quebec government confirmed this program will run until 2027.

RVE consults with condo corporations, operates an online platform (murby.com) with resources for building owners, and sells a demand charge controller (DCC), which is an electric vehicle energy management system. The DCC allows an electrician to plug the EV charger directly into the electrical infrastructure of a single condo or apartment unit. Not only does this reduce extra wiring, but it also monitors the electrical consumption in each unit, only powering the charging station when there’s available electricity. Billing is assigned to the actual unit’s electricity bill.

Currently there are about 12,000 DCC units installed in retrofitted buildings across Canada, some that are 40 or 50 years old. “It’s not a question of age; it’s more the location of the electric meters,” Mr. Viger-Bernard says. The DCC can be installed either on the roof or on different floors.

According to Michael Wilk, president of Montreal-based Wilkar Property Management Inc., the biggest barrier is getting condo owners to understand the necessity of doing a retrofit now, as opposed to waiting. He uses price increases to try to convince them.

“Right now, the cost of doing a retrofit is 35 per cent more than it was two years ago,” he says. “If you wait another two years, we can only anticipate it’s going to be 35 per cent higher because of the rising cost of labour, parts and equipment.”

In Nova Scotia, Marc MacDonald of Spark Power Corp. installed an EV charger with a DCC unit at a condo near Halifax about a year ago. “They only had space in their electrical room to add a device for up to 10 EV chargers,” he says. The condo board was hesitant, demanding a great deal of information. “They were concerned about everyone wanting an EV charger.”

Now that Nova Scotia has introduced a program for rebates and incentives to install EV chargers in condos, on-street sites and more, Mr. MacDonald anticipates demand will increase, though Atlantic EV adoption still lags the national average. “But they’ll have to settle with reality. Not everyone can have an EV charger if the building can’t accommodate it.”

 

Related News

View more

Solar produced 4.7% of U.S. electricity in 2022, generation up 25%

US Solar Electricity Generation 2022 rose to a 4.7% share, with 202,256 GWh, per EIA Electric Power Monthly; driven by PV capacity additions despite import constraints, alongside renewables trends in wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric output.

 

Key Points

The share and output of US solar PV in 2022: 4.7% of electricity and 202,256 GWh, as reported by the EIA.

✅ Solar PV reached 4.7% of US power; 202,256 GWh generated in 2022.

✅ Monthly share varied from about 3% in Jan to just over 6% in Apr.

✅ Wind was 10.1%; wind+solar hit slightly over 20% in April.

 

In 2022, solar photovoltaics made up 4.7% of U.S. electricity generation, an increase of almost 21% over the 2021 total when solar produced 3.9% of US electricity and about 3% in 2020 according to long-term outlooks. Total solar generation was up 25%, breaking through 200,000 GWh for the year.

The record deployment volumes of 2020 when renewables became the second-most U.S. electricity source and 2021 are the main factors behind this increase. If it were not for ongoing solar panel import difficulties and general inflation, solar’s contribution to electricity generation might have reached 5% in 2022. The data was released by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) in their Electric Power Monthly. This release includes data from December 2022, as well as the rest of the data from 2022.

Solar as a percentage of monthly electricity generation ranged from a low of almost 3% in January, to just over 6% in April. April’s production marked a new monthly record for solar generation in the US and coincided with a renewables share record that month.

Total generation of solar electricity peaked in July, at 21,708 GWh. Over the course of the year, solar production reached  202,256 GWh, and total U.S. electricity generation reached 4,303,980 GWh, a year in which renewables surpassed coal in the power mix overall. Total US electricity generation increased by 3.5% over the 4,157,467 GWh produced in 2021.

In 2022, wind energy contributed 10.1% of the total electricity generated in the United States. Wind and solar together produced 14.8% of U.S. electricity in 2022, growing from the 13% recorded in 2021. In April, when solar power peaked at just over 6%, wind and solar power together reached a peak of slightly over 20%, as a wind-and-solar milestone versus nuclear was noted that month, a new monthly record for the two energy sources.

In total, emissions free energy sources such as wind, solar photovoltaic and thermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal, accounted for 37.9% of the total electricity generated in the U.S., while renewables provided about 25.5% share of the mix during the year. This value is barely higher than 2020’s 37.7% – but represents a return to growth after 2021 saw a decrease in emission free electricity to 37%.

Nuclear power was the most significant contributor to emission free electricity, making up a bit more than 45% of the total emissions free electricity. Wind energy ranked second at 26%, followed by hydroelectricity at 15%, and solar photovoltaic at 12%, confirming solar as the #3 renewable in the U.S. mix.

Emissions free electricity is a different summation than the EIA’s ‘Renewable Energy’ category. The Renewable Energy category also includes:

  • Wood and Wood-Derived Fuels
  • Landfill Gas
  • Biogenic Municipal Solid Waste
  • Other Waste Biomass

Nuclear produced 17.9% of the total U.S. electricity, a value that has generally stayed flat over the years. However, since nuclear facilities are being retired faster than new facilities are coming online, nuclear production has fallen in the past two years. After multiple long delays, we will probably see reactor three of the Vogtle nuclear facility come online in 2023. Reactor four is officially scheduled to come online later this year.

Hydroelectric production also declined in 2022, due to drought conditions in the southwestern United States. With rain and snow storms in California and the southwest, hydroelectricity generation may rebound in 2023.

 

Related News

View more

Why Electric Vehicles Are "Greener" Than Ever In All 50 States

UCS EV emissions study shows electric vehicles produce lower life-cycle emissions than gasoline cars across all states, factoring tailpipe, grid mix, power plant sources, and renewable energy, delivering mpg-equivalent advantages nationwide.

 

Key Points

UCS study comparing EV and gas life-cycle emissions, finding EVs cleaner than new gas cars in every U.S. region.

✅ Average EV equals 93 mpg gas car on emissions.

✅ Cleaner than 50 mpg gas cars in 97% of U.S.

✅ Regional grid mix included: tailpipe to power plant.

 

One of the cautions cited by electric vehicle (EV) naysayers is that they merely shift emissions from the tailpipe to the local grid’s power source, implicating state power grids as a whole, and some charging efficiency claims get the math wrong, too. And while there is a kernel of truth to this notion—they’re indeed more benign to the environment in states where renewable energy resources are prevalent—the average EV is cleaner to run than the average new gasoline vehicle in all 50 states. 

That’s according to a just-released study conducted the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which determined that global warming emissions related to EVs has fallen by 15 percent since 2018. For 97 percent of the U.S., driving an electric car is equivalent or better for the planet than a gasoline-powered model that gets 50 mpg. 

In fact, the organization says the average EV currently on the market is now on a par, environmentally, with an internal combustion vehicle that’s rated at 93 mpg. The most efficient gas-driven model sold in the U.S. gets 59 mpg, and EV sales still trail gas cars despite such comparisons, with the average new petrol-powered car at 31 mpg.

For a gasoline car, the UCS considers a vehicle’s tailpipe emissions, as well as the effects of pumping crude oil from the ground, transporting it to a refinery, creating gasoline, and transporting it to filling stations. For electric vehicles, the UCS’ environmental estimates include both emissions from the power plants themselves, along with those created by the production of coal, natural gas or other fossil fuels used to generate electricity, and they are often mischaracterized by claims about battery manufacturing emissions that don’t hold up. 

Of course the degree to which an EV ultimately affects the atmosphere still varies from one part of the country to another, depending on the local power source. In some parts of the country, driving the average new gasoline car will produce four to eight times the emissions of the average EV, a fact worth noting for those wondering if it’s the time to buy an electric car today. The UCS says the average EV driven in upstate New York produces total emissions that would be equivalent to a gasoline car that gets an impossible 255-mpg. In even the dirtiest areas for generating electricity, EVs are responsible for as much emissions as a conventionally powered car that gets over 40 mpg.

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Live Online & In-person Group Training

Advantages To Instructor-Led Training – Instructor-Led Course, Customized Training, Multiple Locations, Economical, CEU Credits, Course Discounts.

Request For Quotation

Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person instruction, our electrical training courses can be tailored to meet your company's specific requirements and delivered to your employees in one location or at various locations.