Energy Department Announces 20 New Competitors for the American-Made Solar Prize

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

New England Clean Energy Connect advances despite court delays, installing steel poles on a Maine corridor for Canadian hydropower, while legal challenges seek environmental review; permits, jobs, and grid upgrades drive the renewable transmission project.

Key Points

An HV line in Maine delivering 1,200 MW of Canadian hydropower to New England to cut emissions and stabilize costs.

✅ Appeals court pauses 53-mile new section; upgrades continue

✅ 1,200 MW hydropower aims to cut emissions, stabilize rates

✅ Permits issued; environmental review litigation ongoing

Construction on part of a $1 billion electricity transmission corridor through sparsely populated woods in western Maine is on hold because of legal action, echoing Clean Line's Iowa withdrawal amid court uncertainty, but that doesn't mean all building has been halted.

Workers installed the first of 829 steel poles Tuesday on a widened portion of the existing corridor that is part of the project near The Forks, as the groundwork is laid for the 145-mile ( 230-kilometre ) New England Clean Energy Connect, a project central to Maine's debate over the 145-mile line moving forward.

The work is getting started even though the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delayed construction of a new 53-mile ( 85-kilometre ) section.

Three conservation groups are seeking an injunction to delay the project while they sue to force the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a more rigorous environmental review.

In western Maine, workers already have staged heavy equipment and timber “mats” that will be used to prevent the equipment from damaging the ground. About 275 Maine workers already have been hired, and more would be hired if not for the litigation, officials said.

“This project has always promised to provide an economic boost to Maine’s economy, and we are already seeing those benefits take shape," Thorn Dickinson, CEO of the New England Clean Energy Connect, said Tuesday.

The electricity transmission line would provide a conduit for up to 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower, reducing greenhouse emissions and stabilizing energy costs in New England as states pursue Connecticut's market overhaul to improve market design, supporters say.

The project, which would be fully funded by Massachusetts ratepayers to meet the state's clean energy goals after New Hampshire rejected a Quebec-Massachusetts proposal elsewhere, calls for construction of a high-voltage power line from Mount Beattie Township on the Canadian border to the regional power grid in Lewiston, Maine.

Critics have been trying to stop the project, reflecting clashes over New Hampshire hydropower in the region, saying it would destroy wilderness in western Maine. They also say that the environmental benefits of the project have been overstated.

In addition to the lawsuit, opponents have submitted petitions seeking to have a statewide vote, even as a Maine court ruling on Hydro-Quebec exports has reshaped the legal landscape.

Sandi Howard, a leading opponent of the project, said the decision by the company to proceed showed “disdain for everyday Mainers” by ignoring permit appeals and ongoing litigation.

“For years, CMP has pushed the false narrative that their unpopular and destructive project is a ‘done deal’ to bully Mainers into submission on this for-profit project. But to be clear, we won’t stop until Maine voters (their customers), have the chance to vote,” said Howard, who led the referendum petition drive for the No CMP Corridor PAC.

The project has received permits from the Army Corps, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Land Use Planning Commission and Maine Public Utilities Commission.

The final approval came in the form of a presidential permit issued last month from the U.S. Department of Energy, providing green light for the interconnect at the Canadian border, even as customer backlash to utility acquisitions elsewhere underscores public scrutiny.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Trades Electrical Safety addresses electric contact incidents among trade workers, emphasizing power line hazards, overhead lines clearance, the 3 m rule, jobsite planning, and safety training to prevent injuries during spring and summer.

Key Points

BC Hydro Trades Electrical Safety is guidance and training to reduce power-line contact risks for trade workers.

✅ Stay at least 3 m from overhead power lines and equipment

✅ Plan worksites and spot hazards before starting tasks

✅ Use BC Hydro electrical awareness training near electricity

A BC Hydro report finds serious electrical contact incidents are more common among trades workers, and research shows this is partly due to a knowledge gap in the electricity sector in Canada.

Trade workers were involved in more than 60 per cent of electric contact incidents that led to serious injuries over the last three years, according to BC Hydro.

One-in-five trade workers have also either made contact or had a close call with electric equipment.

A recent worksite electrocution case underscores the consequences of contact.

“New research finds many have had a close call with electricity on the job or have witnessed unsafe work near overhead lines or electrical equipment,” BC Hydro staff said in the report.

“A gap in electrical safety knowledge is a contributing factor in most of these incidents.”

Most electrical contact incidents take place in the spring and summer, when trade workers are working outdoors and are working in close proximity to power lines.

BC Hydro offered tips for trades workers who may work closely to possible electrical contact points:

• Look up and down – Observe the site beforehand and plan work so you can avoid contact with power lines
• Stay back – You and your tools should stay at least 3 m away from an overhead power line
• Call for help – If you come across a fallen power line, or a tree branch or object contacts a line—stay back 10 metres and call 911. Never try and move it yourself. If you must work closer than 3 m to a power line at your worksite, call BC Hydro before you begin.
• Learn about the risks – BC Hydro offers in-person and online electrical awareness training, such as arc flash training, for anyone who works near electricity.

The report found that 38 per cent of trades workers who participated in the report said they only feel “somewhat informed” about safety measures around working near electricity and 71 per cent were unable to identify the correct distance they should be away from active power lines or electrical equipment.

BC Hydro said trade workers should participate in its electrical awareness training courses, including arc flash training, to make sure all safety measures are taken.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Uranium Critical Mineral Reclassification signals a US executive order directing USGS to restore critical status, boosting nuclear energy, domestic uranium mining, streamlined permitting, federal support, and energy security amid import reliance and supply chain risks.

Key Points

A policy relisting uranium as a critical mineral to unlock funding, speed permits, and strengthen U.S. nuclear security.

✅ Directs Interior to have USGS reconsider uranium classification

✅ Speeds permits for domestic uranium mining projects

✅ Targets import dependence and strengthens energy security

In a strategic move to bolster the United States' nuclear energy sector, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, directing the Secretary of the Interior to instruct the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to reconsider classifying uranium as a critical mineral. This directive aims to enhance federal support and streamline permitting processes for domestic uranium projects, thereby strengthening U.S. energy security objectives.

Reclassification of Uranium as a Critical Mineral

The USGS had previously removed uranium from its critical minerals list in 2022, categorizing it as a "fuel mineral" that did not qualify for such designation. The recent executive order seeks to reverse this decision, recognizing uranium's strategic importance in the context of the nation's energy infrastructure and geopolitical considerations.

Implications for Domestic Uranium Production

Reclassifying uranium as a critical mineral is expected to unlock federal funding and expedite the permitting process for uranium mining projects within the United States. This initiative is particularly pertinent given the significant decline in domestic uranium production over the past two decades. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic production has decreased by 96%, from 4.8 million pounds in 2014 to approximately 121,296 pounds in the third quarter of 2024.

Current Uranium Supply Dynamics

Despite the push for increased domestic production, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on uranium imports. In 2022, 27% of U.S. uranium purchases were sourced from Canada, with an additional 57% imported from countries including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Australia, and Russia; a recent ban on Russian uranium could further disrupt these supply patterns and heighten risks. This reliance on foreign sources has raised concerns about energy security, especially in light of recent geopolitical tensions.

Challenges and Considerations

While the executive order represents a significant step toward revitalizing the U.S. nuclear energy sector, several challenges persist, and energy dominance faces constraints that will shape implementation:

• Regulatory Hurdles: Accelerating the permitting process for uranium mining projects involves navigating complex environmental and regulatory frameworks, though recent permitting reforms for geothermal hint at potential pathways, which can be time-consuming and contentious.

• Market Dynamics: The uranium market is subject to global supply and demand fluctuations, and domestic producers may face competition from established international suppliers.

• Infrastructure Development: Expanding domestic uranium production necessitates substantial investment in mining infrastructure and workforce development, areas that have been underfunded in recent years.

Broader Implications for Nuclear Energy Policy

The executive order aligns with a broader strategy to revitalize the U.S. nuclear energy industry, where ongoing nuclear innovation is critical to delivering stable, low-emission power. The increasing demand for nuclear energy is driven by the global push for zero-emissions energy sources and the need to support power-intensive technologies, such as artificial intelligence servers.

Former President Trump's executive order to reclassify uranium as a critical mineral, aligning with his broader energy agenda and a prior pledge to end the 'war on coal', signifies a pivotal moment for the U.S. nuclear energy sector. By potentially unlocking federal support, including programs advanced by the Nuclear Innovation Act, and streamlining permitting processes, this initiative aims to reduce dependence on foreign uranium sources and enhance national energy security. However, realizing these objectives will require addressing regulatory challenges, market dynamics, and infrastructure needs to ensure the successful revitalization of the domestic uranium industry.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin energy consumption is driven by mining electricity demand, with TWh-scale power use, carbon footprint concerns, and Cambridge estimates. Rising prices incentivize more hardware; efficiency gains and renewables adoption shape sustainability outcomes.

Key Points

Bitcoin energy consumption is mining's electricity use, driven by price, device efficiency, and energy mix.

✅ Cambridge tool estimates ~121 TWh annual usage

✅ Rising BTC price incentivizes more mining hardware

✅ Efficiency, renewables, and costs shape footprint

"Mining" for the cryptocurrency is power-hungry, with power curtailments reported during heat waves, involving heavy computer calculations to verify transactions.

Cambridge researchers say it consumes around 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year - and is unlikely to fall unless the value of the currency slumps, even as Americans use less electricity overall.

Critics say electric-car firm Tesla's decision to invest heavily in Bitcoin undermines its environmental image.

The currency's value hit a record $48,000 (£34,820) this week. following Tesla's announcement that it had bought about $1.5bn bitcoin and planned to accept it as payment in future.

But the rising price offers even more incentive to Bitcoin miners to run more and more machines.

And as the price increases, so does the energy consumption, according to Michel Rauchs, researcher at The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, who co-created the online tool that generates these estimates.

“It is really by design that Bitcoin consumes that much electricity,” Mr Rauchs told BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “This is not something that will change in the future unless the Bitcoin price is going to significantly go down."

The online tool has ranked Bitcoin’s electricity consumption above Argentina (121 TWh), the Netherlands (108.8 TWh) and the United Arab Emirates (113.20 TWh) - and it is gradually creeping up on Norway (122.20 TWh).

The energy it uses could power all kettles used in the UK, where low-carbon generation stalled in 2019, for 27 years, it said.

However, it also suggests the amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the US alone could power the entire Bitcoin network for a year, and in Canada, B.C. power imports have helped meet demand.

Mining Bitcoin
In order to "mine" Bitcoin, computers - often specialised ones - are connected to the cryptocurrency network.

They have the job of verifying transactions made by people who send or receive Bitcoin.

This process involves solving puzzles, which, while not integral to verifying movements of the currency, provide a hurdle to ensure no-one fraudulently edits the global record of all transactions.

As a reward, miners occasionally receive small amounts of Bitcoin in what is often likened to a lottery.

To increase profits, people often connect large numbers of miners to the network - even entire warehouses full of them, as seen with a Medicine Hat bitcoin operation backed by an electricity deal.

That uses lots of electricity because the computers are more or less constantly working to complete the puzzles, prompting some utilities to consider pauses on new crypto loads in certain regions.

The University of Cambridge tool models the economic lifetime of the world's Bitcoin miners and assumes that all the Bitcoin mining machines worldwide are working with various efficiencies.

Using an average electricity price per kilowatt hour ($0.05) and the energy demands of the Bitcoin network, it is then possible to estimate how much electricity is being consumed at any one time, though in places like China's power sector data can be opaque.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News