California's Looming Green New Car Wreck


gavin newsom

NFPA 70b Training - Electrical Maintenance

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

Canada must commit to 100 per cent clean electricity

Canada Green Investment Gap highlights lagging EV and clean energy funding as peers surge. With a green recovery budget pending, sustainable finance, green bonds, EV charging, hydrogen, and carbon capture are pivotal to decarbonization.

 

Key Points

Canada lags peers in EV and clean energy investment, urging faster budget and policy action to cut emissions.

✅ Per capita climate spend trails US and EU benchmarks

✅ EVs, hydrogen, charging need scaled funding now

✅ Strengthen sustainable finance, green bonds, disclosure

 

Canada is being outpaced on the international stage when it comes to green investments in electric vehicles and green energy solutions, environmental groups say.

The federal government has an opportunity to change course in about three weeks, when the Liberals table their first budget in over two years, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argued in a new analysis endorsed by nine other climate action, ecology and conservation organizations.

“Canada’s international peers are ramping up commitments for green recovery, including significant investments from many European countries,” states the analysis, “Investing for Tomorrow, Today,” published March 29.

“To keep up with our global peers, sufficient investments and strengthened regulations, including EV sales regulations, must work in tandem to rapidly decarbonize all sectors of the Canadian economy.”

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland confirmed last week that the federal budget will be tabled April 19. The Liberals are expected to propose between $70 billion and $100 billion in fiscal stimulus to jolt the economy out of its pandemic doldrums.

The government teased a coming economic “green transformation” late last year when Freeland released the fall economic statement, promising to examine federal green bonds, border carbon adjustments and a sustainable finance market, with tweaks like tightening the climate-risk disclosure obligations of corporations.

The government has also proposed a wide range of green measures in its new climate plan released in December — which the think tank called the “most ambitious” in Canada’s history — including energy retrofit programs, boosting hydrogen and other alternative fuels, and rolling out carbon capture technology in a grid where 18% of electricity still came from fossil fuels in 2019.

But the possible “three-year stimulus package to jumpstart our recovery” mentioned in the fall economic statement came with the caveat that the COVID-19 virus would have to be “under control.” While vaccines are being administered, Canada is currently dealing with a rise of highly transmissible variants of the virus.

Freeland spoke with United States Vice-President Kamala Harris on March 25, highlighting potential Canada-U.S. collaboration on EVs alongside the “need to support entrepreneurs, small businesses, young people, low-wage and racialized workers, the care economy, and women” in the context of an economic recovery.

Biden is contemplating a climate recovery plan that could exceed US$2 trillion as Canada looks to capitalize on the U.S. auto pivot to EVs to spur domestic industry. Per capita, that is over 8 times what Canada has announced so far for climate-related spending in the wake of the pandemic, according to a new analysis from green groups.
U.S. President Joe Biden is contemplating a climate and clean energy recovery plan that could “exceed US$2 trillion,” White House officials told reporters this month. “Per capita, that is over eight times what Canada has announced so far for climate-related spending in the wake of the pandemic,” the IISD-led analysis stated.

Biden’s election platform commitment of $508 billion over 10 years in clean energy was also seen as “significantly higher per capita than Canada’s recent commitments.”

Since October 2020, Canada has announced $36 billion in new climate-focused funding, a 2035 EV mandate and other measures, the groups found. By comparison, they noted, a political agreement in Europe proposed that a minimum of 37 per cent of investments in each national recovery plan should support climate action. France and Germany have also committed tens of billions of dollars to support clean hydrogen.

As for electric vehicles (EVs), the United Kingdom has committed $4.9 billion, while Germany has put up $7.5 billion to expand EV adoption and charging infrastructure and sweeten incentive programs for prospective buyers, complementing Canada’s ambitious EV goals announced domestically. The U.K. has also committed $3.5 billion for bike lanes and other active transportation, the groups noted.

Canada announced $400 million over five years this month for a new network of bike lanes, paths, trails and bridges, the first federal fund dedicated to active transportation.

 

Related News

View more

California introduces new net metering regime

California NEM-3 Tariff ushers a successor Net Energy Metering framework, revising export compensation, TOU rates, and non-bypassable charges to balance ratepayer impacts, rooftop solar growth, and energy storage adoption across diverse communities.

 

Key Points

The CPUC's successor NEM policy redefining export credits and rates to sustain customer-sited solar and storage.

✅ Sets export compensation methodology beyond NEM 2.0

✅ Aligns TOU rates and non-bypassable charges with costs

✅ Encourages solar-plus-storage adoption and equity access

 

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has officially commenced its “NEM-3” proceeding, which will establish the successor Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariff to the “NEM 2.0” program in California. This is a highly anticipated, high-stakes proceeding that will effectively modify the rules for the NEM tariff in California, amid ongoing electricity pricing changes that affect residential rooftop solar – arguably the single most important policy mechanism for customer-sited solar over the last decade.

The CPUC’s recent order instituting rule-making (OIR) filing stated that “the major focus of this proceeding will be on the development of a successor to existing NEM 2.0 tariffs. This successor will be a mechanism for providing customer-generators with credit or compensation for electricity generated by their renewable facilities that a) balances the costs and benefits of the renewable electrical generation facility and b) allows customer-sited renewable generation to grow sustainably among different types of customers and throughout California’s diverse communities.”

This successor tariff proceeding was initiated by Assembly Bill 327, which was signed into law in October of 2013. AB 327 is best known as the legislation that directed the CPUC to create the “NEM 2.0” successor tariff, which was adopted by the CPUC in January of 2016.

The original Net Energy Metering program in California (“NEM 1.0”) effectively enabled full-retail value net metering “allowing NEM customers to be compensated for the electricity generated by an eligible customer-sited renewable resource and fed back to the utility over an entire billing period.” Under the NEM 2.0 tariff, customers were required to pay charges that aligned them more closely with non-NEM customer costs than under the original structure. The main changes adopted when the NEM 2.0 was implemented were that NEM 2.0 customer-generators must: (i) pay a one-time interconnection fee; (ii) pay non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour of electricity they consume from the grid; and (iii) customers were required to transfer to a time-of-use (TOU) rate, with potential changes to electric bills for many customers.

NEM 2.0

The commencement of the NEM-3 OIR was preceded by the publishing of a 318-page Net Energy Metering 2.0 Lookback Study, which was published by Itron, Verdant Associates, and Energy and Environmental Economics. The CPUC-commissioned study had been widely anticipated and was expected to act as the starting reference point for the successor tariff proceeding. Verdant also hosted a webinar, which summarized the study’s inputs, assumptions, draft findings and results.

The study utilized several different tests to study the impact of NEM 2.0. The cost effectiveness analysis tests, which estimate costs and benefits attributed to NEM 2.0 include: (i) total resource cost test, (ii) participant cost test, (iii) ratepayer impact measure test, and (iv) program administrator test. The evaluation also included a cost of service analysis, which estimates the marginal cost borne by the utility to serve a NEM 2.0 customer.

The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary stated that “overall, we found that NEM 2.0 participants benefit from the structure, while ratepayers see increased rates.” In every test that the author’s conducted the results generally supported this conclusion for residential customers. There were some exceptions in their findings. For example, in the cost of service analysis the report stated that “residential customers that install customer-sited renewable resources on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them. On the other hand, nonresidential customers pay bills that are slightly higher than their cost of service after installing customer-sited renewable resources. This is largely due to nonresidential customer rates having demand charges (and other fixed fees), and the lower ratio of PV system size to customer load when compared to residential customers.”

Similar debates over solar rate design, including Massachusetts solar demand charges, highlight how demand charges and TOU decisions can affect customer economics.

NEM-3 timeline

Popular content
The preliminary schedule that the CPUC laid out in its OIR estimates that the proceeding will take roughly 15 months in total, starting with a November 2020 pre-hearing conference.

The real meat of the proceeding, where parties will present their proposals for what they believe the successor tariff should be, as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, and really show their hand will not begin until the Spring of 2021. So we’re still a little ways away from seeing the proposals that the key parties to this proceeding, like the Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), solar and storage advocates such as SEIA, CALSSA, Vote Solar, and ratepayer advocates like TURN) will submit.

While the outcome for the new successor NEM tariff is anyone’s guess at this point, some industry policy folks are starting to speculate. We think it is safe to assume that the value of exported energy will get reduced, with debates over income-based utility charges also influencing rate design. How much and the mechanism for how exports get valued remains to be seen. Based on the findings from the lookback study, it seems like the reduction in export value will be more severe than what happened when NEM 2.0 got implemented. In NEM 2.0, non-bypassable charges, which are volumetric charges that must be paid on all imported energy and cannot be netted-out by exports, only equated to roughly $0.02 to $0.03/kWh.

Given that the value of exports will almost certainly get reduced, we expect that to be bullish for energy storage as America goes electric and load shapes evolve. Energy storage attachment rates with solar are already steadily rising in California. By the time NEM-3 starts getting implemented, likely in 2022, we think storage attachment rates will likely escalate further.

We would not be surprised to see future storage attachment rates in California look like the Hawaiian market today, which are upwards of 80% for certain types of customers and applications. Two big questions on our mind are: (i) will the NEM 3.0 rules be different for different customer class: residential, CARE (e.g., low-income or disadvantaged communities), and commercial & industrial; (ii) will the CPUC introduce some sort of glidepath or phased in implementation approach?

The outcome of this proceeding will have far reaching implications on the future of customer-sited solar and energy storage in California. The NEM-3 outcome in California may likely serve as precedent for other states, as California exports its energy policies across the West, and utility territories that are expected to redesign their Net Energy Metering tariffs in the coming years.

 

Related News

View more

Climate change, not renewables, threaten grid

New Mexico Energy Transition Act advances renewable energy, battery storage, energy efficiency, and demand response to boost grid reliability during climate change-fueled heatwaves, reducing emissions while supporting solar and wind deployment.

 

Key Points

A state policy phasing out power emissions, scaling renewables and storage, bolstering grid reliability in extreme heat.

✅ Replaces coal generation with solar plus battery storage

✅ Enhances grid reliability during climate-driven heatwaves

✅ Promotes energy efficiency and demand response programs

 

While temperatures hit record highs across much of the West in recent weeks and California was forced to curb electricity service amid heat-driven grid strain that week, the power stayed on in New Mexico thanks to proactive energy efficiency and conservation measures.

Public Service Company of New Mexico on Aug. 19 did ask customers to cut back on power use during the peak demand time until 9 p.m., to offset energy supply issues due to the record-breaking heatwave that was one of the most severe to hit the West since 2006. But the Albuquerque Journal's Aug. 28 editorial, "PRC should see the light with record heat and blackouts," confuses the problem with the solution. Record temperatures fueled by climate change – not renewable energy – were to blame for the power challenges last month. And thanks to the Energy Transition Act, New Mexico is reducing climate change-causing pollution and better positioned to prevent the worst impacts of global warming.

During those August days, more than 80 million U.S. residents were under excessive heat warnings. As the Journal's editorial pointed out, California experienced blackouts on Aug. 14 and 15 as wildfires swept across the state and temperatures rose. In fact, a recent report by the University of Chicago's Climate Impact Lab found the world has experienced record heat this summer due to climate change, and heat-related deaths will continue to rise in the future.

As the recent California energy incidents show, climate change is a threat to a reliable electricity system and our health as soaring temperatures and heatwaves strain our grid, as seen in Texas grid challenges this year as well. Demand for electricity rises as people depend more on energy-intensive air conditioning. High temperatures also can decrease transmission line efficiency and cause power plant operators to scale back or even temporarily stop electricity generation.

Lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry may claim that the service interruptions and the conservation requests in New Mexico demonstrate the need for keeping fossil-fueled power generation for electricity reliability, echoing policy blame narratives in California that fault climate policies. But fossil fuel combustion still is subject to the factors that cause blackouts – while also driving climate change and making resulting heatwaves more common. After an investigation, California's own energy agencies found no substance to the claim that renewable energy use was a factor in the situation there, and it's not to blame in New Mexico, either.

New Mexico's Energy Transition Act is a bold, necessary step to limit the damage caused by climate change in the future. It creates a reasonable, cost-saving path to eliminating greenhouse gas emissions associated with generating electricity.

The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission properly applied this law when it recently voted unanimously to replace PNM's coal-fired generation at San Juan Generating Station with carbon-free solar energy and battery storage located in the Four Corners communities, a prudent step given California's looming electricity shortage warnings across the West. The development will create jobs and provide resources for the local school district and help ensure a stronger economy and a healthier future for the region.

As we expand solar and wind energy here in New Mexico, we can help ensure reliable electricity service by building out greater battery storage for renewable energy resources. Expanding regional energy markets that can dispatch the lowest-cost energy from across the region to places where it is needed most would make renewable energy more available and reduce costs, despite concerns over policy exports raised by some observers.

Energy efficiency and demand response are important when we are facing extraordinary conditions, and proven strategies to improve electricity reliability show how demand-side tools complement the grid, so it is unfortunate that the Albuquerque Journal made the unsubstantiated claim that a stray cloud will put out the lights. It was hot, supplies were tight on the electric grid, and in those moments, we should conserve. We should not use those moments to turn our back on progress.

 

Related News

View more

What cities can learn from the biggest battery-powered electric bus fleet in North America

Canadian Electric Bus Fleet leads North America as Toronto's TTC deploys 59 battery-electric, zero-emission buses, advancing public transit decarbonization with charging infrastructure, federal funding, lower maintenance, and lifecycle cost savings for a low-carbon urban future.

 

Key Points

Canada's leading battery-electric transit push, led by Toronto's TTC, scaling zero-emission buses and charging.

✅ Largest battery-electric bus fleet in North America

✅ TTC trials BYD, New Flyer, Proterra for range and reliability

✅ Charging infrastructure, funding, and specs drive 2040 zero-emissions

 

The largest battery-powered electric bus fleet in North America is Canadian. Toronto's transit system is now running 59 electric buses from three suppliers, and Edmonton's first electric bus is now on the road as well. And Canadian pioneers such as Toronto offer lessons for other transit systems aiming to transition to greener fleets for the low-carbon economy of the future.

Diesel buses are some of the noisier, more polluting vehicles on urban roads. Going electric could have big benefits, even though 18% of Canada's 2019 electricity from fossil fuels remains a factor.

Emissions reductions are the main reason the federal government aims to add 5,000 electric buses to Canada's transit and school fleets by the end of 2024. New funding announced this week as part of the government's fall fiscal update could also give programs to electrify transit systems a boost.

"You are seeing huge movement towards all-electric," said Bem Case, the Toronto Transit Commission's head of vehicle programs. "I think all of the transit agencies are starting to see what we're seeing ... the broader benefits."

While Vancouver has been running electric trolley buses (more than 200, in fact), many cities (including Vancouver) are now switching their diesel buses to battery-electric buses in Metro Vancouver that don't require overhead wires and can run on regular bus routes.

The TTC got approval from its board to buy its first 30 battery-electric buses in November 2017. Its plan is to have a zero-emissions fleet by 2040.

That's a crucial part of Toronto's plan to meet its 2050 greenhouse gas targets, which requires 100 per cent of vehicles to transition to low-carbon energy by then.

But Case said the transition can't happen overnight. 


Finding the right bus
For one thing, just finding the right bus isn't easy.

"There's no bus, by any manufacturer, that's been in service for the entire life of a bus, which is 12 years," Case said.

"And so really, until then, we don't have enough experience, nor does anyone else in the industry, have enough experience to commit to an all-electric fleet immediately."

In fact, Case said, there are only three manufacturers that make suitable long-range buses — the kind needed in a city the size of Toronto.

Having never bought electric buses before, the city had no specifications for what it needed in an electric bus, so it decided to try all three suppliers: Winnipeg-based New Flyer; BYD, which is headquartered in Shenzhen, China, but built the TTC buses at its Newmarket, Ont. facility; and California-based Proterra.

They all had their strengths and weaknesses, based on their backgrounds as a traditional non-electric bus manufacturer, a battery maker and a vehicle technology and design startup, respectively.

"Each bus type has its own potential challenges." Case said all three manufacturers are working to resolve any adoption challenges as quickly as possible.

But the biggest challenge of all, Case said, is getting the infrastructure in place. 

"There's no playbook, really, for implementing charging infrastructure," he said.

Each bus type needed their own chargers, in some cases using different types of current. Each type has been installed in a different garage in partnership with local utility Toronto Hydro.

Buying and installing them represented about $70 million, or about half the cost of acquiring Toronto's first 60 electric buses. The $140 million project was funded by the federal Public Transit Infrastructure Fund.

Case said it takes about three hours to charge a battery that has been fully depleted. To maximize use of the bus, it's typically put on a long route in the morning, covering 200 to 250 kilometres. Then it's partially charged and put on a shorter run in the late afternoon.

"That way we get as much mileage on the buses as we can."


Cost and reliability?
Besides the infrastructure cost of chargers, each electric bus can cost $200,000 to $500,000 more per bus than an average $750,000 diesel bus. 

Case acknowledges that is "significantly" more expensive, but it is offset by fuel savings over time, as electricity costs are cheaper. Because the electric buses have fewer parts than diesel buses, maintenance costs are also about 25 per cent lower and the buses are expected to be more reliable.

As with many new technologies, the cost of electric buses is also falling over time.

Case expects they will eventually get to the point where the total life-cycle cost of an electric and a diesel bus are comparable, and the electric bus may even save money in the long run.

As of this fall, all but one of the 60 new electric buses have been put into service. The last one is expected to hit the road in early December.

Summer testing showed that air conditioning the buses reduced the battery capacity by about 15 per cent. 

But the TTC needs to see how much of the battery capacity is consumed by heating in winter, at least when the temperature is above 5 C. Below that, a diesel-powered heater kicks in.

Once testing is complete, the TTC plans to develop specifications for its electric bus fleet and order 300 more in 2023, for delivery between 2023 and 2025.


Potential benefits
Even with some diesel heating, the TTC estimates electric buses reduce fuel usage by 70 to 80 per cent. If its whole fleet were switched to electric buses, it could save $50 million to $70 million in fuel a year and 150 tonnes of greenhouse gases per bus per year, or 340,000 tonnes for the entire fleet.

Other than greenhouse gases, electric buses also generate fewer emissions of other pollutants. They're also quieter, creating a more comfortable urban environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

But the benefits could potentially go far beyond the local city.

"If the public agencies start electrifying their fleet and their service is very demanding, I think they'll demonstrate to the broader transportation industry that it is possible," Case said.

"And that's where you'll get the real gains for the environment."

Alex Milovanoff, a postdoctoral researcher in the University of Toronto's department of civil engineering, did a U of T EV study that suggested electrified transit has a crucial role to play in the low-carbon economy of the future.

His calculations show that 90 per cent of U.S. passenger vehicles — 300 million — would need to be electric by 2050 to reach targets under the global Paris Agreement to fight climate change.

And that would put a huge strain on resources, including both the mining of metals, such as lithium and cobalt, that are used in electric vehicle batteries and the electrical grid itself.

A better solution, he showed, was combining the transition to electric vehicles with a reduction in the number of private vehicles, and higher usage of transit, cycling and walking.

"Then that becomes a feasible picture," he said.

What's needed to make the transition
But in order to make that happen, governments need to make investments and navigate the 2035 EV mandate debate on timelines, he added.

That includes subsidies for buying electric buses and building charging stations so transit agencies don't need to make fares too high. But it also includes more general improvements to the range and reliability of transit infrastructure.

"Electrifying the bus fleet is only efficient if we have a large public transit fleet and if we have many buses on the road and if people take them," Milovanoff said.

In its fall economic update on Monday, the federal government announced $150 million over three years to speed up the installation of zero-emission vehicle infrastructure.

Josipa Petrunic, CEO of the Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium, a non-profit organization focused on zero-carbon mobility and transportation, said that in the past, similar funding has paid for high-powered charging systems for transit systems in B.C. and Ontario. But that's only a small part of what's needed, she said.

"Infrastructure Canada needs to come to the table with the cash for the buses and the whole rest of the system."

She said funding is needed for:

Feasibility studies to figure out how many and what kinds of buses are needed for different routes in different transit systems.

Targets and incentives to motivate transit systems to make the switch.

Incentives to encourage Canadian procurement to build the industry in Canada.

Technology to collect and share data on the performance of electric vehicles so transit systems can make the best-possible decisions to meet the needs of their riders.

Petrunic said that a positive side-effect of electrifying transit systems is that the infrastructure can support, in addition to buses, electric trucks for moving freight.

"It's not a lot given that we have 15,000 buses out there in the transit fleet," she said.

"But we should be able to get a lot further ahead if we match the city commitments to zero emissions with federal and provincial funding for jobs creating zero-emissions technologies."

 

Related News

View more

Scores more wind turbines proposed for Long Island’s South Shore

New York Offshore Wind Expansion adds Equinor's Empire Wind 2 and Beacon Wind, boosting megawatts, turbines, and grid connections for Long Island and Queens, with jobs, assembly at South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, and clean energy.

 

Key Points

A statewide initiative proposing new Equinor and partner projects to scale offshore wind capacity, jobs, and grid links.

✅ Adds 2,490 MW via Empire Wind 2 and Beacon Wind

✅ Connects to Nassau County and Queens grids for reliability

✅ Creates 3,000+ NY jobs with South Brooklyn Marine Terminal work

 

Scores more 600-foot tall wind turbines would be built off Jones Beach under a new proposal.

Norwegian energy conglomerate Equinor has bid to create another 2,500 megawatts of offshore wind power for New York state and Long Island, where offshore wind sites are being evaluated, with two projects. One, which would connect to the local electric grid in Nassau County, would more than double the number of turbines off Long Island to some 200. A second would be built around 50 miles from Montauk Point and connect to the state grid in Queens. The plan would also include conducting assembly work in Brooklyn.

In disclosures Tuesday in response to a state request for proposals, Equinor said it would bolster its already state-awarded, 819-megawatt Empire Wind project off Long Island’s South Shore with another called Empire Wind 2 that will add 1,260 megawatts. Turbines of at least 10 megawatts each would mean that the prior project’s 80 or so turbines could be joined by another 120. Equinor’s federally approved lease area off Long Island encompasses some 80,000 acres, starting 15 miles due south of Long Beach and extending east and south.

Equinor on Tuesday also submitted plans to offer a second project called Beacon Wind that would be built 50 miles from Montauk Point, off the Massachusetts South Coast area. It would be 1,230 megawatts and connect through Long Island Sound to Queens.

Equinor said its latest energy projects would generate more than 3,000 New York jobs, including use of the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal for “construction activities” and an operations and maintenance base.

The new proposals came in response to a New York State Energy Research and Development Authority bid request for renewable projects in the state. In a statement, Siri Espedal Kindem, president of Equinor Wind U.S., said the company’s plans would include “significant new benefits for New York – from workforce training, economic development, and community benefits – alongside a tremendous amount of homegrown, renewable energy.”

Meanwhile, Denmark-based Orsted, working with New England power company Eversource, has also submitted plans for a new offshore wind project called Sunrise Wind 2, a proposal that includes “multiple bids” that would create “hundreds of new jobs, and infrastructure investment,” according to a company statement. Con Edison Transmission will also work to develop transmission facilities for that project, the companies said.

Orsted and Eversource already have contracts to develop a 130-megawatt wind farm for LIPA to serve the South Fork, and an 880-megawatt wind farm for the state. All of its hundreds of turbines would be based in a lease area off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where Vineyard Wind has progressed as a key project.

“Sunrise Wind 2 will create good-paying jobs for New York, support economic growth, and further reduce emissions while delivering affordable clean energy to Long Island and the rest of New York,” Joe Nolan, executive vice president for Eversource, said in a statement.

 

Related News

View more

Within A Decade, We Will All Be Driving Electric Cars

Electric Vehicle Price Parity 2027 signals cheaper EV manufacturing as battery costs plunge, widening model lineups, and tighter EU emissions rules; UBS and BloombergNEF foresee parity, with TCO advantages over ICE amid growing fast-charging networks.

 

Key Points

EV cost parity in 2027 when manufacturing undercuts ICE, led by cheaper batteries, wider lineups, and emissions policy.

✅ Battery costs drop 58% next decade, after 88% fall

✅ Manufacturing parity across segments from 2027

✅ TCO favors EVs; charging networks expand globally

 

A Bloomberg/NEF report commissioned by Transport & Environment forecasts 2027 as the year when electric vehicles will start to become cheaper to manufacture than their internal combustion equivalents across all segments, aligning with analyses that the EV age is arriving ahead of schedule for consumers and manufacturers alike, mainly due to a sharp drop in battery prices and the appearance of new models by more manufacturers.

Batteries, which have fallen in price by 88% over the past decade and are expected to plunge by a further 58% over the next 10 years, make up between one-quarter and two-fifths of the total price of a vehicle. The average pre-tax price of a mid-range electric vehicle is around €33,300, and higher upfront prices concern many UK buyers compared to €18,600 for its diesel or gasoline equivalent. In 2026, both are expected to cost around €19,000, while in 2030, the same electric car will cost €16,300 before tax, while its internal combustion equivalent will cost €19,900, and that’s without factoring in government incentives.

Other reports, such as a recent one by UBS, put the date of parity a few years earlier, by 2024, after which they say there will be little reason left to buy a non-electric vehicle, as the market has expanded from near zero to 2 million in just five years.

In Europe, carmakers will become a particular stakeholder in this transition due to heavy fines for exceeding emissions limits calculated on the basis of the total number of vehicles sold. Increasing the percentage of electric vehicles in the annual sales portfolio is seen by the industry as the only way to avoid these fines. In addition to brands such as Bentley or Jaguar Land Rover, which have announced the total abandonment of internal combustion engine technology by 2025, or Volvo, which has set 2030 as the target date, other companies such as Ford, which is postponing this date in its home market, also set 2030 for the European market, which clearly demonstrates the suitability of this type of policy.

Nevertheless internal combustion vehicles will continue to travel on the roads or will be resold in developing countries. In addition to the price factor, which is even more accentuated when estimates are carried out in terms of total cost of ownership calculations due to the lower cost of electric recharging versus fuel and lower maintenance requirements, other factors such as the availability of fast charging networks must be taken into account.

While price parity is approaching, it is worth thinking about the factors that are causing car sales, which are still behind gasoline models in share, to suffer: the chip crisis, which is strongly affecting the automotive industry and will most likely extend until 2022, is creating production problems and the elimination of numerous advanced electronic options in many models, which reduces the incentive to purchase a vehicle at the present time. These types of reasons could lead some consumers to postpone purchasing a vehicle precisely when we may be talking about the final years for internal combustion technology, which would increase the likelihood that, later on and as the price gap closes, they would opt for an electric vehicle.

Finally, in the United States, the ambitious infrastructure plan put in place by the Biden administration also promises to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles by addressing key barriers to mainstream adoption such as charging access, which in turn is fueling the interest of automotive companies to have more electric vehicles in their range. In Europe, meanwhile, more Chinese brands offering electric vehicles are beginning to enter the most advanced markets, such as Norway and the Netherlands, with plans to expand to the rest of the continent with very competitive offers in terms of price.

One way or another, the future of the automotive industry is electric, and the transition will take place during the remainder of this decade. You might want to think about it if you are weighing whether it’s time to buy an electric car this year.

 

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

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified