Canada's race to net-zero and the role of renewable energy

Vineyard Wind I advances as BOEM issues a final environmental impact statement for the 800 MW offshore wind farm south of Martha's Vineyard, delivering clean energy, jobs, and carbon reductions to Massachusetts toward net-zero.

Key Points

An 800 MW offshore wind project near Martha's Vineyard supplying clean power to Massachusetts.

✅ 800 MW capacity; power for 400,000+ homes and businesses

✅ BOEM final EIS; record of decision pending within 30+ days

✅ 1.68M metric tons CO2 avoided annually; jobs and lower rates

Federal environmental officials have completed their review of the Vineyard Wind I offshore wind farm, moving the project that is expected to deliver clean renewable energy to Massachusetts by the end of 2023 closer to becoming a reality.

The U.S. Department of the Interior said Monday morning that its Bureau of Ocean Energy Management completed the analysis it resumed about a month ago, published the project's final environmental impact statement, and said it will officially publish notice of the impact statement in the Federal Register later this week.

"More than three years of federal review and public comment is nearing its conclusion and 2021 is poised to be a momentous year for our project and the broader offshore wind industry," Vineyard Wind CEO Lars Pedersen said. "Offshore wind is a historic opportunity to build a new industry that will lead to the creation of thousands of jobs, reduce electricity rates for consumers and contribute significantly to limiting the impacts of climate change. We look forward to reaching the final step in the federal permitting process and being able to launch an industry that has such tremendous potential for economic development in communities up and down the Eastern seaboard."

The 800-megawatt wind farm planned for 15 miles south of Martha's Vineyard was the first offshore wind project selected by Massachusetts utility companies with input from the Baker administration to fulfill part of a 2016 clean energy law. It is projected to generate cleaner electricity for more than 400,000 homes and businesses in Massachusetts, produce at least 3,600 jobs, reduce costs for Massachusetts ratepayers by an estimated $1.4 billion, and eliminate 1.68 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

Offshore wind power, informed by the U.S. offshore wind outlook, is expected to become an increasingly significant part of Massachusetts' energy mix. The governor and Legislature agree on a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but getting there is projected to require having about 25 gigawatts of offshore wind power. That means Massachusetts will need to hit a pace in the 2030s where it has about 1 GW of new offshore wind power on the grid coming online each year.

"I think that's why today's announcement is so historic, because it does represent that culmination of work to understand how to permit and build a cost-effective and environmentally-responsible wind farm that can deliver clean energy to Massachusetts ratepayers, but also just how to do this from start to finish," said Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides. "As we move towards our goal of probably [25 GW] of offshore wind by 2050 to hit our net-zero target, this does give us confidence that we have a much clearer path in terms of permitting."

She added, "There's a huge pipeline, so getting this project out really should open the door to the many additional projects up and down the East Coast, such as Long Island proposals, that will come after it."

According to the American Wind Energy Association, there are expected to be 14 offshore projects totaling 9,112 MW of capacity in operation by 2026.

Susannah Hatch, the clean energy coalition director for the Environmental League of Massachusetts and a leader of the broad-based New England for Offshore Wind Regional group, called offshore wind farms like Vineyard Wind "the linchpin of our decarbonization efforts in New England." She said the Biden administration's quick action on Vineyard Wind is a positive sign for the burgeoning sector.

"Moving swiftly on responsibly developed offshore wind is critical to our efforts to mitigate climate change, and offshore wind also provides an enormous opportunity to grow the economy, create thousands of jobs, and drive equitable economic benefits through increased minority economic participation in New England," Hatch said.

With the final environmental impact statement published, Vineyard Wind still must secure a record of decision from BOEM, which processes wind lease requests, an air permit from the Environmental Protection Agency and sign-offs from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service to officially clear the way for the project that is on track to be the nation's first utility-scale offshore wind farm. BOEM must wait at least 30 days from the publication of the final environmental impact statement to issue a record of decision.

Project officials have said they expect the final impact statement and then a record of decision "sometime in the first half of 2021." That would allow the project to hit its financial close milestone in the second half of this year, begin on-shore work quickly thereafter, start offshore construction in 2022, begin installing turbines in 2023 and begin exporting power to the grid, marking Vineyard Wind first power, by late 2023, Pedersen said in January.

"Offshore energy development provides an opportunity for us to work with Tribal nations, communities, and other ocean users to ensure all decisions are transparent and utilize the best available science," BOEM Director Amanda Lefton said.

The commercial fishing industry has been among the most vocal opponents of aspects of the Vineyard Wind project and the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) has repeatedly urged the new administration to ensure the voices of the industry are heard throughout the licensing and permitting process.

In comments submitted earlier this month in response to a BOEM review of an offshore wind project that is expected to deliver power to New York, including the recent New York offshore wind approval, RODA said the present is "a time of significant confusion and change in the U.S. approach to offshore wind energy (OSW) planning" and detailed mitigation measures it wants to see incorporated into all projects.

"To be clear, none of these requests are new -- nor hardly radical. They have simply been ignored again, and again, and again in a political push/pull between multinational energy companies and the U.S. government, leaving world-famous seafood, and the communities founded around its harvest, off the table," the group said in a press release last week. Some of RODA's suggestions were analyzed as part of BOEM's Vineyard Wind review.

Vineyard Wind has certainly taken a circuitous path to get to this point. The timeline for the project was upended in August 2019 when the Trump administration decided to conduct a much broader assessment of potential offshore wind projects up and down the East Coast, which delayed the project by almost a year.

When the Trump administration delayed its action on a final environmental impact statement last year, Vineyard Wind on Dec. 1 announced that it was pulling its project out of the federal review pipeline in order to complete an internal study on whether the decision to use a certain type of turbine would warrant changes to construction and operations plan. The Trump administration declared the federal review of the project "terminated."

Within two weeks of President Joe Biden being inaugurated, Vineyard Wind said its review determined no changes were necessary and the company resubmitted its plans for review. BOEM agreed to pick up where the Trump administration had left off despite the agency previously declaring its review terminated.

"It would appear that fishing communities are the only ones screaming into a void while public resources are sold to the highest bidder, as BOEM has reversed its decision to terminate a project after receiving a single letter from Vineyard Wind," RODA said.

The final environmental impact statement that BOEM published Monday showed that the federal regulators believe the Vineyard Wind I development as proposed will have "moderate" impacts on commercial fisheries and for-hire recreational fishing outfits, and that the project combined with other factors not related to wind energy development will have "major" impacts on commercial and recreational fishing ventures.

Vineyard Wind pointed Monday to the fishery mitigation agreements it has entered into with Massachusetts and Rhode Island, a fishery science collaboration with the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth's School of Marine Science and Technology, and an agreement with leading environmental organizations around the protection of the endangered right whale.

Responding to concerns about safe navigation among RODA and others in the fishing sector, Vineyard Wind and the four other developers holding leases for offshore wind sites off New England agreed to orient their turbines in fixed east-to-west rows and north-to-south columns spaced one nautical mile apart. Last year, the U.S. Coast Guard concluded that the grid layout was the best way to maintain maritime safety and ease of navigation in the offshore wind development areas south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.

Since a 2016 clean energy law kicked off the state's foray into the offshore wind world, Massachusetts utilities have contracted for a total of about 1,600 MW between two projects, Vineyard Wind I and Mayflower Wind.

A joint venture of Shell and Ocean Winds North America, Mayflower Wind was picked unanimously in 2019 by utility executives to build and operate a wind farm approximately 26 nautical miles south of Martha's Vineyard and 20 nautical miles south of Nantucket, with South Coast construction activity expected as the project progresses. The 804-megawatt project is expected to be operational by December 2025.

Massachusetts and its utilities are expected to go out to bid for up to another 1,600 MW of offshore wind generation capacity later this year using authorization granted by the Legislature in 2018.

The climate policy bill that Gov. Charlie Baker returned to the Legislature with amendments more than a month ago would require that the executive branch direct Massachusetts utilities to buy an additional 2,400 MW of offshore wind power.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV battery supply strategies weigh in-house cell manufacturing against supplier contracts, optimizing costs, scale, and supply-chain resilience for electric vehicles. Automakers like Tesla, GM-LG Chem, VW-Northvolt, and Ford balance gigafactories, joint ventures, and procurement risks.

Key Points

How automakers secure EV battery cells by balancing cost, scale, tech risk, and supply-chain control to meet demand.

✅ In-source cells via gigafactories, JVs, and proprietary chemistries

✅ Contract with LG Chem, Panasonic, CATL, SKI to diversify supply

✅ Manage costs, logistics, IP, and technology obsolescence risks

Auto makers, pumping billions of dollars into developing electric cars, are now facing a critical inflection point as they decide whether to get more involved with manufacturing the core batteries or buy them from others.

Batteries are one of an electric vehicle’s most expensive components, accounting for between a quarter and a third of the car’s value. Driving down their cost is key to profitability, executives say.

But whereas the internal combustion engine traditionally has been engineered and built by auto makers themselves, battery production for electric cars is dominated by Asian electronics and chemical firms, such as LG Chem Ltd. and Panasonic Corp. , and newcomers like China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co.

California, the U.S.’s largest car market, said last month it would end the sale of new gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger cars by 2035, putting pressure on the auto industry to accelerate its shift to electric vehicles in the coming years.

The race to lock in supplies for electric cars has auto makers taking varied paths, with growing Canada-U.S. collaboration across supply chains.

While most make the battery pack, a large metal enclosure often lining the bottom of the car, they also need the cells that are bundled together to form the core electricity storage.

Tesla several years ago opened its Gigafactory in Nevada to make batteries with Panasonic, which in the shared space would produce cells for the packs. The electric-car maker wanted to secure production specifically for its own models and lower manufacturing and logistics costs.

Now it is looking to in-source more of that production.

While Tesla will continue to buy cells from Panasonic and other suppliers, it is also working on its own cell technology and production capabilities, aiming for cheaper, more powerful batteries to ensure it can keep up with demand for its cars, said Chief Executive Elon Musk last month.

Following Tesla’s lead, General Motors Co. and South Korea’s LG Chem are putting $2.3 billion into a nearly 3-million-square-foot factory in Lordstown, Ohio, highlighting opportunities for Canada to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot as supply chains evolve, which GM says will eventually produce enough battery cells to outfit hundreds of thousands of cars each year.

In Europe, Volkswagen AG is taking a similar path, investing about $1 billion in Swedish battery startup Northvolt AB, including some funding to build a cell-manufacturing plant in Salzgitter, Germany, as part of a joint venture, and in North America, EV assembly deals in Canada are putting it in the race as well.

Others like Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are steering clear of manufacturing their own cells, with executives saying they prefer contracting with specialized battery makers.

Supply-chain disruptions, including lithium shortages, have already challenged some new model launches and put projects at risk, auto makers say.

For instance, Ford and VW have agreements in place with SK Innovation to supply battery cells for future electric-vehicle models. The South Korean company is building a factory in Georgia to help meet this demand, but a fight over trade secrets has put the plant’s future in jeopardy and could disrupt new model launches, both auto makers have said in legal filings.

GM executives say the risk of relying on suppliers has pushed them to produce their own battery cells, albeit with LG Chem.

“We’ve got to be able to control our own destiny,” said Ken Morris, GM’s vice president of electric vehicles.

Bringing the manufacturing in house will give the company more control over the raw materials it purchases and the battery-cell chemistry, Mr. Morris said.

But establishing production, even in a joint venture, is a costly proposition, and it won’t necessarily ensure a timely supply of cells. There are also risks with making big investments on one battery technology because a breakthrough could make it obsolete.

Ford cites those factors in deciding against a similar investment for now.

The company sees the industry’s conventional model of contracting with independent suppliers to build parts as better suited to its battery-cell needs, Ford executive Hau Thai-Tang told analysts in August.

“We have the competitive tension with dealing with multiple suppliers, which allows us to drive the cost down,” Mr. Thai-Tang said, adding that the company expects to pay prices for cells in line with GM and Tesla.

Meanwhile, Ford can leave the capital-intensive task of conducting the research and setting up manufacturing facilities to the battery companies, Mr. Thai-Tang said.

Germany’s Daimler has tried both strategies.

The car company made its own lithium-ion cells through a subsidiary until 2015. But the capital required to scale up was better spent elsewhere, said Ola Källenius, Daimler’s chief executive officer.

The auto maker instead signed long-term supply agreements with Asian companies like Chinese battery-maker CATL and Farasis Energy (Ganzhou) Co., which Daimler invested in last year.

The company has said it is spending roughly $23.6 billion on purchase agreements but keeping its battery research in-house.

“Let’s rather put that capital into what we do best, cars,” Mr. Källenius said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

East-West Power Transmission Grid links provinces via hydroelectric interconnects, clean energy exports, and reliable grid infrastructure, requiring federal funding, multibillion-dollar transmission lines, and coordinated planning across Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Newfoundland.

Key Points

A proposed interprovincial grid to share hydro power, improve reliability, and cut emissions with federal funding.

✅ Hydroelectric exports from Manitoba to prairie and eastern provinces

✅ New interconnects and transmission lines require federal funding

✅ Enhances grid reliability and supports coal phase-out

Manitoba's energy minister is recharging the idea of building an east-west power transmission grid and says the federal government needs to help.

Cliff Cullen told the Energy Council of Canada's western conference on Tuesday that Manitoba has "a really clean resource that we're ready to share with our neighbours" as new hydro generation projects, including new turbines come online.

"This is a really important time to have that discussion about the reliability of energy and how we can work together to make that happen," said Cullen, minister of growth, enterprise and trade.

"And, clearly, an important component of that is the transmission side of it. We've been focused on transmission ... north and south, and we haven't had that dialogue about east-west."

Most hydro-producing provinces currently focus on exports to the United States, though transmission constraints can limit incremental deliveries.

Saskatchewan Energy Minister Dustin Duncan said his province, which relies heavily on coal-fired electricity plants, could be interested in getting electricity from Manitoba, even as a Manitoba Hydro warning highlights limits on serving new energy-intensive customers.

"They're big projects. They're multibillion-dollar projects," Duncan said after speaking on a panel with Cullen and Alberta Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd.

"Even trying to do the interconnects to the transmission grid, I don't think they're as easy or as maybe low cost as we would just imagine, just hooking up some power lines across the border. It takes much more work than that."

Cullen said there's a lot of work to do on building east-west transmission lines if provinces are going to buy and sell electricity from each other. He suggested that money is a key factor.

"Each province has done their own thing in terms of transmission within their jurisdiction and we have to have that dialogue about how that interconnectivity is going to work. And these things don't happen overnight," he said.

"Hopefully the federal government will be at the table to have a look at that, because it's a fundamental expense, a capital expense, to connect our provinces."

The 2016 federal budget said significant investment in Canada's electricity sector will be needed over the next 20 years to replace aging infrastructure and meet growing demand for electricity, with Manitoba's demand potentially doubling over that period.

The budget allocated $2.5 million over two years to Natural Resources Canada for regional talks and studies to identify the most promising electricity infrastructure projects.

In April, the government told The Canadian Press that Natural Resources Canada has been talking with ministry representatives and electric utilities in the western and Atlantic provinces.

The idea of developing an east-west transmission grid has long been talked about as a way to bring energy reliability to Canadians.

At their annual meeting in 2007, Canada's premiers supported development and enhancement of transmission facilities across the country, although the premiers fell short of a firm commitment to an east-west energy grid.

Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador are the most vocal proponents of east-west transmission, even as Quebec's electricity ambitions have reopened old wounds in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Manitoba and Newfoundland want the grid because of the potential to develop additional exports of hydro power, while Ontario sees the grid as an answer to its growing power needs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Electric vehicles may cost more upfront but often save money long-term. A new MIT study shows the total cost of EV ownership is lower than gas cars when factoring in fuel, maintenance, and emissions.

Total cost of EV ownership is the focus of new MIT research showing electric vehicles offer both financial and environmental benefits over time.

✅ Electric vehicles cost more upfront but save money over their lifetime through lower fuel and maintenance costs

✅ MIT study confirms EVs have lower emissions and total ownership costs than most gas-powered cars

✅ New interactive tool helps consumers compare climate and cost impacts of EVs, hybrids, and traditional vehicles

Electric vehicles are better for the climate than gas‑powered cars, but many Americans are still reluctant to buy them. One reason: The larger upfront cost.

New data published Thursday shows that despite the higher sticker price, electric cars may actually save drivers money in the long-run.

To reach this conclusion, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated both the carbon dioxide emissions and full lifetime cost — including purchase price, maintenance and fuel — for nearly every new car model on the market.

They found electric cars were easily more climate friendly than gas-burning ones. Over a lifetime, they were often cheaper, too.

Jessika Trancik, an associate professor of energy studies at M.I.T. who led the research, said she hoped the data would “help people learn about how those upfront costs are spread over the lifetime of the car.”

For electric cars, lower maintenance costs and the lower costs of charging compared with gasoline prices tend to offset the higher upfront price over time. (Battery-electric engines have fewer moving parts that can break compared with gas-powered engines and they don’t require oil changes. Electric vehicles also use regenerative braking, which reduces wear and tear.)

As EV adoption continues to boom, more consumers are realizing the long-term savings and climate benefits. Ontario’s investment in EV charging stations reflects how infrastructure is beginning to catch up with demand. Despite regional energy pricing differences, EV charging costs remain lower than gasoline in nearly every U.S. city.

The cars are greener over time, too, despite the more emissions-intensive battery manufacturing process. Dr. Trancik estimates that an electric vehicle’s production emissions would be offset in anywhere from six to 18 months, depending on how clean the energy grid is where the car is charging.

In some areas, EVs are even being used to power homes, enhancing their value as a sustainable investment. Recent EPA rules aim to boost EV sales, further signaling government support. California leads the nation in EV charging infrastructure, setting a model for nationwide adoption.

The new data showed hybrid cars, which run on a combination of fuel and battery power, and can sometimes be plugged in, had more mixed results for both emissions and costs. Some hybrids were cheaper and spewed less planet-warming carbon dioxide than regular cars, but others were in the same emissions and cost range as gas-only vehicles.

Traditional gas-burning cars were usually the least climate friendly option, though long-term costs and emissions spanned a wide range. Compact cars were usually cheaper and more efficient, while gas-powered SUVs and luxury sedans landed on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Dr. Trancik’s team released the data in an interactive online tool to help people quantify the true costs of their car-buying decisions — both for the planet and their budget. The new estimates update a study published in 2016 and add to a growing body of research underscoring the potential lifetime savings of electric cars.

Take the Tesla Model 3, the most popular electric car in the United States. The M.I.T. team estimated the lifetime cost of the most basic model as comparable to a Nissan Altima that sells for $11,000 less upfront. (That’s even though Tesla’s federal tax incentive for electric vehicles has ended.)

Toyota’s Hybrid RAV4 S.U.V. also ends up cheaper in the long run than a similar traditional RAV4, a national bestseller, despite a higher retail price.

Hawaii, Alaska and parts of New England have some of the highest average electricity costs, while parts of the Midwest, West and South tend to have lower rates. Gas prices are lower along the Gulf Coast and higher in California. But an analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists still found that charging a vehicle was more cost effective than filling up at the pump across 50 major American cities. “We saw potential savings everywhere,” said David Reichmuth, a senior engineer for the group’s Clean Transportation Program.

Still, the upfront cost of an electric vehicle continues to be a barrier for many would-be owners.

The federal government offers a tax credit for some new electric vehicle purchases, but that does nothing to reduce the initial purchase price and does not apply to used cars. That means it disproportionately benefits wealthier Americans. Some states, like California, offer additional incentives. President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has pledged to offer rebates that help consumers swap inefficient, old cars for cleaner new ones, and to create 500,000 more electric vehicle charging stations, too.

EV sales projections for 2024 suggest continued acceleration, especially as costs fall and policy support expands. Chris Gearhart, director of the Center for Integrated Mobility Sciences at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said electric cars will become more price competitive in coming years as battery prices drop. At the same time, new technologies to reduce exhaust emissions are making traditional cars more expensive. “With that trajectory, you can imagine that even immediately at the purchase price level, certain smaller sedans could reach purchase price parity in the next couple of years,” Dr. Gearhart said.

Related Pages:

EV Boom Unexpectedly Benefits All Electricity Customers

Ontario Invests in New EV Charging Stations

EV Charging Cost Still Beats Gasoline, Study Finds

EPA Rules Expected to Boost U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales

California Takes the Lead in Electric Vehicle and Charging Station Adoption

EVs to Power Homes: New Technology Turns Cars Into Backup Batteries

U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Soar Into 2024

Alberta Leads Canada’s Renewable Surge showcases how the province is transforming its power grid with wind, solar, and hydrogen energy projects that reduce carbon emissions, create sustainable jobs, and drive Canada’s clean electricity future.

Key Points: Alberta Leads Canada’s Renewable Surge

It is a national clean energy initiative showcasing Alberta’s leadership in renewable electricity generation, grid modernization, and sustainable economic growth.

✅ Expands solar, wind, and hydrogen projects across Alberta

✅ Reduces emissions while strengthening grid reliability

✅ Creates thousands of clean energy jobs and investments

Alberta is rapidly emerging as a national leader in clean electricity, driving Canada’s transition to a low-carbon energy future. A federal overview highlights how the province has become the powerhouse behind the country’s renewable energy growth across the Prairies, phasing out coal ahead of schedule and attracting billions in clean-energy investment.

In 2023, Alberta accounted for an astonishing 92 percent of Canada’s increase in renewable electricity generation, reflecting a renewable energy surge across the province. Solar and wind developments have expanded dramatically, as new lower-cost solar contracts are signed, reducing the province’s reliance on natural gas and cutting emissions from the power sector. Alberta’s vast land area and strong wind and solar resources have made it an ideal location for large-scale renewable projects that are transforming its energy landscape.

Federal programs are helping fuel this momentum. Through the Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways program, 49 Alberta projects have already received over $660 million in funding, with an additional $152 million announced in the 2024 federal budget. Flagship developments include the Forty Mile Wind Farm and the Big Sky Solar Power Project, each backed by $25 million in federal support. These investments are creating jobs, strengthening grid reliability, and positioning Alberta at the forefront of Canada’s clean energy transition.

Although fossil fuels still dominate Alberta’s electricity mix, a major change is underway. In 2022, coal and natural gas accounted for 81 percent of electricity generation, while renewables and other sources contributed 18 percent, and the province’s hydroelectric capacity remained comparatively small. However, Alberta has successfully phased out coal generation ahead of the federal deadline, marking a milestone achievement in the province’s decarbonization journey.

Alberta’s renewable expansion features some of the country’s most significant projects. The Travers Solar Project in Vulcan County generates up to 465 megawatts — enough to power about 150,000 homes. Indigenous-led solar initiatives are also expanding, underscoring the province’s solar power growth, supported by $160 million in federal funding that has already created more than 1,500 jobs. On the wind side, the 494-megawatt Buffalo Plains Wind Farm, Canada’s largest onshore installation, began operating in 2024, followed by the 190-megawatt Paintearth Wind facility, which signed a 15-year power purchase agreement with Microsoft.

Beyond wind and solar, Alberta is exploring new technologies to maintain a stable, low-carbon grid while addressing solar expansion challenges related to grid integration. The province is collaborating with Saskatchewan on the development of small modular reactors (SMRs) to provide reliable baseload power and support the long-term shift toward net-zero electricity by 2050. Projects integrating carbon capture and storage are also moving forward, such as the proposed Moraine Power Generating Project — a 465-megawatt natural gas plant that is expected to create more than 700 jobs during construction.

The economic potential of Alberta’s clean energy transformation is substantial. Clean Energy Canada estimates that between 2025 and 2050, the province could gain more than 400,000 new jobs in the clean energy sector — triple the number currently employed in the upstream oil and gas industry. These positions will span renewable generation, hydrogen production, grid modernization, and energy storage.

With strong federal backing, aggressive private investment, and rapid deployment of renewable energy, Alberta is redefining its energy identity. Once known for its fossil fuel resources, the province is now positioning itself as a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels in Canada, demonstrating that economic growth and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand.

Related Articles

• Canada Electricity News