California's Looming Green New Car Wreck


gavin newsom

Substation Relay Protection Training

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:
$699
Coupon Price:
$599
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

Fact check: Claim on electric car charging efficiency gets some math wrong

EV Charging Coal and Oil Claim: Fact-check of kWh, CO2 emissions, and electricity grid mix shows 70 lb coal or ~8 gallons oil per 66 kWh, with renewables and natural gas reducing lifecycle emissions.

 

Key Points

A viral claim on EV charging overstates oil use; accurate figures depend on grid mix: ~70 lb coal or ~8 gallons oil.

✅ About 70 lb coal or ~8 gal oil per 66 kWh, incl. conversion losses

✅ EVs average ~100 g CO2 per mile vs ~280 g for 30 mpg cars

✅ Grid mix includes renewables, nuclear, natural gas; oil use is low

 

The claim: Average electric car requires equivalent of 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil for a single charge

The Biden administration has pledged to work towards decarbonizing the U.S. electricity grid by 2035. And the recently passed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill provides funding for more electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, including EV charging networks across the country under current plans.

However, a claim that electric cars require an inordinate amount of oil or coal energy to charge has appeared on social media, even as U.S. plug-ins traveled 19 billion miles on electricity in 2021.

“An average electric car takes 66 KWH To charge. It takes 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil to make 66 KWH,” read a Dec 1 Facebook post that was shared nearly 500 times in a week. “Makes absolutely no sense.” 

The post included a stock image of an electric car charging, though actual charging costs depend on local rates and vehicle efficiency.

This claim is in the ballpark for the coal comparison, but the math on the oil usage is wildly inaccurate.

It would take roughly 70 pounds of coal to produce the energy required to charge a 66 kWh electric car battery, said Ian Miller, a research associate at the MIT Energy Initiative. That's about 15 pounds less than is claimed in the post.

The oil number is much farther off.

While the post claims that it takes six barrels of oil to charge a 66 kWh battery, Miller said the amount is closer to 8 gallons  — the equivalent of 20% of one barrel of oil.

He said both of his estimates account for energy lost when fossil fuels are converted into electricity. 

"I think the most important question is, 'How do EVs and gas cars compare on emissions per distance?'," said Miller. "In the US, using average electricity, EVs produce roughly 100 grams of CO2 per mile."

He said this is more than 60% less than a typical gasoline-powered car that gets 30 mpg, aligning with analyses that EVs are greener in all 50 states today according to recent studies. Such a vehicle produces roughly 280 grams of CO2 per mile.

Lifecycle analyses also show that the CO2 from making an EV battery is not equivalent to driving a gasoline car for years, which often counters common misconceptions.

"If you switch to an electric vehicle, even if you're using fossil fuels (to charge), it's just simply not true that you'll be using more fossil fuel," said Jessika Trancik, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the environmental impact of energy systems.  

However, she emphasized electric cars in the U.S. are not typically charged using only energy from coal or oil, and that electricity grids can handle EVs with proper management.

The U.S. electricity grid relies on a diversity of energy sources, of which oil and coal together make up about 20 percent, according to a DOE spokesperson. This amount is likely to continue to drop as renewable energy proliferates in the U.S., even as some warn that state power grids will be challenged by rapid EV adoption. 

"Switching to an electric vehicle means that you can use other sources, including less carbon-intensive natural gas, and even less carbon-intensive electricity sources like nuclear, solar and wind energy, which also carry with them health benefits in the form of reduced air pollutant emissions," said Trancik. 

Our rating: Partly false
Based on our research, we rate PARTLY FALSE the claim that the average electric car requires the equivalent of 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil for a single charge. The claim is in the ballpark on coal consumption, as an MIT researcher estimates that around 70 pounds. But the oil usage is only about 8 gallons, which is 20% of one barrel. And the actual sources of energy for an electric car vary depending on the energy mix in the local electric grid. 

 

Related News

View more

Electric cars won't solve our pollution problems – Britain needs a total transport rethink

UK Transport Policy Overhaul signals bans on petrol and diesel cars, rail franchising reform, 15-minute cities, and active travel, tackling congestion, emissions, microplastics, urban sprawl, and public health with systemic, multimodal planning.

 

Key Points

A shift toward EVs, rail reform, and 15-minute cities to reduce emissions, congestion, and health risks.

✅ Phase-out of petrol and diesel car sales by 2030

✅ National rail franchising replaced with integrated operations

✅ Urban design: 15-minute cities, cycling, and active travel

 

Could it be true? That this government will bring all sales of petrol and diesel cars to an end by 2030, even as a 2035 EV mandate in Canada is derided by critics? That it will cancel all rail franchises and replace them with a system that might actually work? Could the UK, for the first time since the internal combustion engine was invented, really be contemplating a rational transport policy? Hold your horses.

Before deconstructing it, let’s mark this moment. Both announcements might be a decade or two overdue, but we should bank them as they’re essential steps towards a habitable nation.

We don’t yet know exactly what they mean, as the government has delayed its full transport announcement until later this autumn. But so far, nothing that surrounds these positive proposals makes any sense, and the so-called EV revolution often proves illusory in practice.

If the government has a vision for transport, it appears to be plug and play. We’ll keep our existing transport system, but change the kinds of vehicles and train companies that use it. But when you have a system in which structural failure is embedded, nothing short of structural change will significantly improve it.

A switch to electric cars will reduce pollution, though the benefits depend on the power mix; in Canada, Canada’s grid was 18% fossil-fuelled in 2019, for example. It won’t eliminate it, as a high proportion of the microscopic particles thrown into the air by cars, which are highly damaging to our health, arise from tyres grating on the surface of the road. Tyre wear is also by far the biggest source of microplastics pouring into our rivers and the sea. And when tyres, regardless of the engine that moves them, come to the end of their lives, we still have no means of properly recycling them.

Cars are an environmental hazard long before they leave the showroom. One estimate suggests that the carbon emissions produced in building each one equate to driving it for 150,000km. The rise in electric vehicle sales has created a rush for minerals such as lithium and copper, with devastating impacts on beautiful places. If the aim is greatly to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and replace those that remain with battery-operated models, alongside EV battery recycling efforts, then they will be part of the solution. But if, as a forecast by the National Grid proposes, the current fleet is replaced by 35m electric cars, a University of Toronto study warns they are not a silver bullet, and we’ll simply create another environmental disaster.

Switching power sources does nothing to address the vast amount of space the car demands, which could otherwise be used for greens, parks, playgrounds and homes. It doesn’t stop cars from carving up community and turning streets into thoroughfares and outdoor life into a mortal hazard. Electric vehicles don’t solve congestion, or the extreme lack of physical activity that contributes to our poor health.

So far, the government seems to have no interest in systemic change. It still plans to spend £27bn on building even more roads, presumably to accommodate all those new electric cars. An analysis by Transport for Quality of Life suggests that this road-building will cancel out 80% of the carbon savings from a switch to electric over the next 12 years. But everywhere, even in the government’s feted garden villages and garden towns, new developments are being built around the car.

Rail policy is just as irrational, even though lessons from large electric bus fleets offer cleaner mass transit options. The construction of HS2, now projected to cost £106bn, has accelerated in the past few months, destroying precious wild places along the way, though its weak business case has almost certainly been destroyed by coronavirus.

If one thing changes permanently as a result of the pandemic, it is likely to be travel. Many people will never return to the office. The great potential of remote technologies, so long untapped, is at last being realised. Having experienced quieter cities with cleaner air, few people wish to return to the filthy past.

Like several of the world’s major cities, our capital is being remodelled in response, though why electric buses haven’t taken over remains a live question. The London mayor – recognising that, while fewer passengers can use public transport, a switch to cars would cause gridlock and lethal pollution – has set aside road space for cycling and walking. Greater Manchester hopes to build 1,800 miles of protected pedestrian and bicycle routes.

Cycling to work is described by some doctors as “the miracle pill”, massively reducing the chances of early death: if you want to save the NHS, get on your bike. But support from central government is weak and contradictory, and involves a fraction of the money it is spending on new roads. The major impediment to a cycling revolution is the danger of being hit by a car.

Even a switch to bicycles (including electric bikes and scooters) is only part of the answer. Fundamentally, this is not a vehicle problem but an urban design problem. Or rather, it is an urban design problem created by our favoured vehicle. Cars have made everything bigger and further away. Paris, under its mayor Anne Hidalgo, is seeking to reverse this trend, by creating a “15-minute city”, in which districts that have been treated by transport planners as mere portals to somewhere else become self-sufficient communities – each with their own shops, parks, schools and workplaces, within a 15-minute walk of everyone’s home.

This, I believe, is the radical shift that all towns and cities need. It would transform our sense of belonging, our community life, our health and our prospects of local employment, while greatly reducing pollution, noise and danger. Transport has always been about much more than transport. The way we travel helps to determine the way we live. And at the moment, locked in our metal boxes, we do not live well.

 

Related News

View more

BWE - Wind power potential even higher than expected

German Wind Power 2030 Outlook highlights onshore and offshore growth, repowering, higher full-load hours, and efficiency gains. Deutsche WindGuard, BWE, and LEE NRW project 200+ TWh, potentially 500 TWh, covering rising electricity demand.

 

Key Points

Forecast: efficiency and full-load gains could double onshore wind to 200+ TWh; added land could lift output to 500 TWh.

✅ Modern turbines and repowering boost full-load hours and yields

✅ Onshore generation could hit 200+ TWh on existing areas by 2030

✅ Expanding land to 2% may enable 500 TWh; offshore adds more

 

Wind turbines have become more and more efficient over the past two decades, a trend reflected in Denmark's new green record for wind-powered generation.

A new study by Deutsche WindGuard calculates the effect on the actual generation volumes for the first time, underscoring Germany's energy transition balancing act as targets scale. Conclusion of the analysis: The technical progress enables a doubling of the wind power generation by 2030.

Progressive technological developments make wind turbines more powerful and also enable more and more full-load hours, with wind leading the power mix in many markets today. This means that more electricity can be generated continuously than previously assumed. This is shown by a new study by Deutsche WindGuard, which was commissioned by the Federal Wind Energy Association (BWE) and the State Association of Renewable Energies NRW (LEE NRW).

The study 'Full load hours of wind turbines on land - development, influences, effects' describes in detail for the first time the effects of advances in wind energy technology on the actual generation volumes. It can thus serve as the basis for further calculations and potential assessments, reflecting milestones like UK wind surpassing coal in 2016 in broader analyses.

The results of the investigation show that the use of modern wind turbines with higher full load hours alone on the previously designated areas could double wind power generation to over 200 terawatt hours (TWh) by 2030. With an additional area designation, generation could even be increased to 500 TWh. If the electricity from offshore wind energy is added, the entire German electricity consumption from wind energy could theoretically be covered, and renewables recently outdelivered coal and nuclear in Germany as a sign of momentum: The current electricity consumption in Germany is currently a good 530 TWh, but will increase in the future.

Christian Mildenberger, Managing Director of LEE NRW: 'Wind can do much more: In the past 20 years, technology has made great leaps and bounds. Modern wind turbines produce around ten times as much electricity today as those built at the turn of the millennium. This must also be better reflected in potential studies by the federal and state governments. '

Wolfram Axthelm, BWE Managing Director: 'We need a new look at the existing areas and the repowering. Today in Germany not even one percent of the area is designated for wind energy inland. But even with this we could cover almost 40 percent of the electricity demand by 2030. If this area share were increased to only 2 percent of the federal area, it would be almost 100 percent of the electricity demand! Wind energy is indispensable for a CO2-neutral future. This requires a clever provision of space in all federal states. '

Dr. Dennis Kruse, Managing Director of Deutsche WindGuard: 'It turns out that the potential of onshore wind energy in Germany is still significantly underestimated. Modern wind turbines achieve a significantly higher number of full load hours than previously assumed. That means: The wind can be used more and more efficiently and deliver more income. '

On the areas already designated today, numerous older systems will be replaced by modern ones by 2030 (repowering). However, many old systems will still be in operation. According to Windguard's calculations, the remaining existing systems, together with around 12,500 new, modern wind systems, could generate 212 TWh in 2030. If the area backdrop were expanded from 0.9 percent today to 2 percent of the land area, around 500 TWh would be generated by inland wind, despite grid expansion challenges in Europe that shape deployment.

The ongoing technological development must also be taken into account. The manufacturers of wind turbines are currently working on a new class of turbines with an output of over seven megawatts that will be available in three to five years. According to calculations by the LEE NRW, by 2040 the same number of wind turbines as today could produce over 700 TWh of electricity inland. The electricity demand, which will increase in the future due to electromobility, heat pumps and the production of green hydrogen, can thus be completely covered by a combination of onshore wind, offshore wind, solar power, bioenergy, hydropower and geothermal energy, and a net-zero roadmap for Germany points to significant cost reductions.

 

Related News

View more

Canada unveils plan for regulating offshore wind

Canada Offshore Wind Amendments streamline offshore energy regulators in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, enabling green hydrogen, submerged land licences, regional assessments, MPAs standards, while raising fisheries compensation, navigation, and Indigenous consultation considerations.

 

Key Points

Reforms assign offshore wind to joint regulators, enable seabed licensing, and address fisheries and Indigenous issues.

✅ Assigns wind oversight to Canada-NS and Canada-NL offshore regulators

✅ Introduces single submerged land licence and regional assessments

✅ Addresses fisheries, navigation, MPAs, and Indigenous consultation

 

Canada's offshore accords with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are being updated to promote development of offshore wind farms, but it's not clear yet whether any compensation will be paid to fishermen displaced by wind farms.

Amendments introduced Tuesday in Ottawa by the federal government assign regulatory authority for wind power to jointly managed offshore boards — now renamed the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator.

Previously the boards regulated only offshore oil and gas projects.

The industry association promoting offshore wind development, Marine Renewables Canada, called the changes a crucial step.

"The tabling of the accord act amendments marks the beginning of, really, a new industry, one that can play a significant role in our clean energy future," said  Lisen Bassett, a spokesperson for Marine Renewables Canada. 

Nova Scotia's lone member of the federal cabinet, Immigration Minister Sean Fraser, also talked up prospects at a news conference in Ottawa.


'We have lots of water'

"The potential that we have, particularly when it comes to offshore wind and hydrogen is extraordinary," said Fraser.

"There are real projects, like Vineyard Wind, with real investors talking about real jobs."

Sharing the stage with assembled Liberal MPs from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador was Nova Scotia Environment Minister Tim Halman, representing a Progressive Conservative government in Halifax.

"If you've ever visited us or Newfoundland, you know we have lots of water, you know we have lots of wind, and we're gearing up to take advantage of those natural resources in a clean, sustainable way. We're paving the way for projects such as offshore wind, tidal energy in Nova Scotia, and green hydrogen production," said Halman.

Before a call for bids is issued, authorities will identify areas suitable for development, conservation or fishing.

The legislation does not outline compensation to fishermen excluded from offshore areas because of wind farm approvals.


Regional assessments

Federal officials said potential conflicts can be addressed in regional assessments underway in both provinces.

Minister of Natural Resources of Canada Jonathan Wilkinson said fisheries and navigation issues will have to be dealt with.

"Those are things that will have to be addressed in the context of each potential project. But the idea is obviously to ensure that those impacts are not significant," Wilkinson said.

Speaking after the event, Christine Bonnell-Eisnor, chair of what is still called the Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, said what compensation — if any — will be paid to fishermen has yet to be determined.

"It is a question that we're asking as well. Governments are setting the policy and what terms and conditions would be associated with a sea bed licence. That is a question governments are working on and what compensation would look like for fishers."

Scott Tessier, who chairs  the Newfoundland Board, added "the experience has been the same next door in Nova Scotia, the petroleum sector and the fishing sector have an excellent history of cooperation and communication and I don't expect it look any different for offshore renewable energy projects."


Nova Scotia in a hurry to get going

The legislation says the offshore regulator would promote compensation schemes developed by industry and fishing groups linked to fishing gear.

Nova Scotia is in a hurry to get going.

The Houston government has set a target of issuing five gigawatts of licences for offshore wind by 2030, with leasing starting in 2025, reflecting momentum in the U.S. offshore wind market as well. It is intended largely for green hydrogen production. That's almost twice the province's peak electricity demand in winter, which is 2.2 gigawatts.

The amendments will streamline seabed approvals by creating a single "submerged land" licence, echoing B.C.'s streamlined process for clean energy projects, instead of the exploration, significant discovery and production licences used for petroleum development.

Federal and provincial ministers will issue calls for bids and approve licences, akin to BOEM lease requests seen in the U.S. market.

The amendments will ensure Marine Protected Area's  (MPAs) standards apply in all offshore areas governed by the regulations.


Marine protected areas

Wilkinson suggested, but declined, three times to explicitly state that offshore wind farms would be excluded from within Marine Protected Areas.

After this story was initially published on Tuesday, Natural Resources Canada sent CBC a statement indicating offshore wind farms may be permitted inside MPAs.

Spokesperson Barre Campbell noted that all MPAs established in Canada after April 25, 2019, will be subject to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans new standards that prohibit key industrial activities, including oil and gas exploration, development and production.

"Offshore renewable energy activities and infrastructure are not key industrial activities," Campbell said in a statement.

"Other activities may be prohibited, however, if they are not consistent with the conservation objectives that are established by the relevant department that has or that will establish a marine protected area."


Federal impact assessment process

The new federal impact assessment process will apply in offshore energy development, and recent legal rulings such as the Cornwall wind farm decision highlight how courts can influence project timelines.

For petroleum projects, future significant discovery licences will be limited to 25 years replacing the current indefinite term.

Existing significant discovery licences have been an ongoing exception and are not subject to the 25-year limit. Both offshore energy regulators will be given the authority to fulfil the Crown's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples

 

Related News

View more

Rhode Island issues its plan to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030

Rhode Island 100% Renewable Electricity by 2030 outlines pathways via offshore wind, retail solar, RECs, and policy reforms, balancing decarbonization, grid reliability, economics, and equity to close a 4,600 GWh supply gap affordably.

 

Key Points

A statewide plan to meet all electricity demand with renewables by 2030 via offshore wind, solar, and REC policies.

✅ Up to 600 MW offshore wind could add 2,700 GWh annually

✅ Retail solar programs may supply around 1,500 GWh per year

✅ Amend RES to retain RECs and align supply with real-time demand

 

A year ago, Executive Order 20-01 cemented in a place Rhode Island’s goal to meet 100% of the state’s electricity demand with renewable energy by 2030, aligning with the road to 100% renewables seen across states. The Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources (OER) worked through the year on an economic and energy market analysis, and developed policy and programmatic pathways to meet the goal.

In the most recent development, OER and The Brattle Group co-authored a report detailing how this goal will be achieved, The Road to 100% Renewable Electricity – The Pathways to 100%.

The report includes economic analysis of the key factors that will guide Rhode Island as it accelerates adoption of carbon-free renewable resources, complementing efforts that are tracking progress on 100% clean energy targets nationwide.

The pathway rests on three principles: decarbonization, economics and policy implementation, goals echoed in Maine’s 100% renewable electricity target planning.

The report says the state needs to address the gap between projected electricity demand in 2030 and projected renewable generation capacity. The report predicts a need for 4,600 GWh of additional renewable energy to close the gap. Deploying that much capacity represents a 150% increase in the amount of renewable energy the state has procured to date. The final figure could as much as 600-700 GWh higher or lower.

Addressing the gap
The state is making progress to close the gap.

Rhode Island recently announced plans to solicit proposals for up to 600 MW of additional offshore wind resources. A draft request for proposals (RFP) is expected to be filed for regulatory review in the coming months, aligning with forecasts that one-fourth of U.S. electricity will soon be supplied by renewables as markets mature. Assuming the procurement is authorized and the full 600 MW is acquired, new offshore wind would add about 2,700 GWh per year, or about 35% of 2030 electricity demand.

Beyond this offshore wind procurement, development of retail solar through existing programs could add another 1,500 GWh per year. That leaves a smaller–though still sizable–gap of around 400 GWh per year of renewable electricity.

All this capacity will come with a hefty price. The report finds that rate impacts would likely boost e a typical 2030 monthly residential bill by about $11 to $14 with utility-scale renewables, or by as much as $30 if the entire gap were to be filled with retail solar.

The upside is that if the renewable resources are developed in-state, the local economic activity would boost Rhode Island’s gross domestic product and local jobs, especially when compared to procuring out-of-state resources or buying Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), and comes as U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022 across the national grid.

Policy recommendations
One policy item that has to be addressed is the state’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES), which currently calls for meeting 38.5% of electricity deliveries with renewables by 2035, even as the federal 2035 clean electricity goal sets a broader benchmark for decarbonization. For example, RES compliance at present does not require the physical procurement of power produced by renewable energy facilities. Instead, electricity providers meet their requirements by purchasing RECs.

The report recommends amending the state’s RES to seek methods by which Rhode Island can retain all of the RECs procured through existing policy and program channels, along with RECs resulting from ratepayer investment in net metered projects, while Nevada’s 50% by 2030 RPS provides a useful interim comparison.

The report also recognizes that the RES alone is unlikely to drive sufficient investment renewable generation and should be paired with programs and policies to ensure sufficient renewable generation to meet the 100% goal. The state also needs to address the RECs created by behind-the-meter systems that add mechanisms to better match the timing of renewable energy generation with real-time demand. The policy would have the 100% RES remain in effect beyond 2030 and also match shifts in energy demand, particularly as other parts of the economy electrify.

Fostering equity
The state also is putting a high priority on making sure the transition to renewables is an equitable one.

The report recommends partnering with and listening to frontline communities about their needs and goals in the clean energy transition. This will include providing traditionally underserved communities with expert consultation to help guide decision making. The report also recommends holding listening sessions to increase accessibility to and understanding of energy system basics.

 

Related News

View more

EV shortages, wait times amid high gasoline prices

Canada EV demand surge is driven by record gas prices, zero-emission policies, and tight dealer inventory, while microchip shortages, ZEV mandates abroad, and lithium supply concerns extend wait times for new and used models.

 

Key Points

Canada EV demand surge is rising interest in zero-emission cars due to high gas prices and limited EV supply.

✅ Gas at $2/litre spurs zero-emission interest

✅ Dealer inventory scarce; waits up to 3 years

✅ Microchip and lithium constraints limit output

 

Price shock at the pump is driving  Canadians toward buying an ev. But manufacturers are having trouble keeping up with consumer demand, even as the U.S. auto sector pivots to EVs across North America.

In parts of the country, gas prices exceeded $2 per litre last month amid strong global demand for oil combined with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Halifax-based electric vehicle salesperson Jeremie Bernardin said he's noticed an explosion of interest in zero-emission vehicles since the price of fuel started to take off.

"I think there's a lot of people that were considering electric vehicles for a very long time, and they needed that extra little push," Bernardin, who is also the president of the Electric Vehicle Association of Atlantic Canada, where Atlantic EV demand has lagged the national average, told CTVNews.ca over the phone on Wednesday.

With so few electric vehicles on dealership lots, Canadians looking to buy a brand-new zero-emission car will have to put down a deposit and get onto a waiting list. Bernardin said the wait times can be as long as three years, depending on the manufacturer and the dealership.

Tesla, which makes Canada's best-selling electric car according to the automotive publication Motor Illustrated, says delivery times for its vehicles range between three months to one year, depending on the model. But some manufacturers like Nissan have already completely sold out of their electric vehicle inventory for the 2022 model year, though recent EV assembly deals in Canada aim to expand capacity over time.

Shortages of electric vehicles have been around long before the recent spike in gas prices. In March 2021, a report commissioned by Transport Canada found that more than half of Canadian dealerships had no electric vehicles in stock. The report also found that wait times exceeded six months at 31 per cent of dealerships that had no zero-emission cars in their inventory.

Interest in used electric vehicles has also surged amid the high gas prices. Used car marketplace AutoTrader.ca says searches for electric cars in March 2022 increased 89 per cent compared to the previous year, while the number of inquiries sent to electric vehicle sellers through its platform jumped 567 per cent.

"It's understandable that when the gas prices are expensive, consumers are looking to buy and get into electric vehicles, though upfront cost remains a major barrier for many buyers today," Baris Akyurek, AutoTrader.ca's director of marketing intelligence, told CTVNews.ca in a phone interview on Wednesday.

SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES PERSIST
The surging interest in electric vehicles also comes at a time when pandemic-induced shortages of microchips have been affecting the automotive industry at large since late 2020. Modern automobiles can have hundreds of microchips that control everything from the air conditioning to the power steering system, and a shortage of these crucial components have resulted in fewer vehicles being manufactured.

"Electric vehicles are subject to supply chain issues, just like anything else. Right now, the COVID pandemic has disrupted global supply chains. The auto industry specifically is seeing a microchip shortage that it's been struggling with for the past year or two. So those things are at play," said Joanna Kyriazis, senior policy advisor with Simon Fraser University’s Clean Energy Canada, in a phone interview with CTVNews.ca on Tuesday.

On top of that, Kyriazis says more than 80 per cent of the world's supply of electric vehicles are shipped to consumers in China and the European Union.

China has a strict zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate that requires automakers to ensure that a certain minimum percentage of their vehicles are electric or hydrogen-powered. In Europe, automakers are also forced to sell more electric vehicles there in order to meet the EU's stringent fleetwide emissions standards, and in Canada, Ottawa is preparing EV sales regulations to guide adoption in the coming years.

"We don't have the same aggressive regulations in place yet to really force automakers to prioritize the Canadian market when they're deciding where to allocate their EV inventory and where to sell EVs," said Kyriazis, though Ottawa's 2035 EV mandate remains debated by some industry observers today.

Kyriazis also said she believes it's possible that a shortage of lithium and other minerals required for battery production could be a potential issue within the next five years.

"But my understanding is that the global market is not hitting a supply crunch just yet," she said. "There could be a near-term supply issue. But we're not there yet."

In order to ensure adequate supply of minerals for battery production, the federal government in its most recent budget committed to providing up to $3.8 billion over eight years to create "Canada's first critical minerals strategy." The strategy is aimed at boosting extraction and production of Canadian nickel, lithium and other minerals used as components in electric vehicles and their batteries, and it aligns with opportunities for Canada-U.S. collaboration as companies electrify.

"Canada has a lot of natural resources and a lot of experience with natural resource extraction. We really can stand to be a leader in battery production," said Harry Constatine, president of the Vancouver Electric Vehicles Association, in an interview with CTVNews.ca over the phone on Monday.

 

 

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.