HE Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer discusses future cooperation opportunities with Tesla during the World Government Summit 2017

PEI Electric Vehicle Incentives aim to boost EV adoption through subsidies and rebates, advocated by Renewable Transport PEI, with MLAs engagement, modeling Norway's approach, offsetting HST gaps, and making electric cars more competitive for Islanders.

Key Points

PEI Electric Vehicle Incentives are proposed subsidies and rebates to make EVs affordable and competitive for Islanders.

✅ Targets EV adoption with rebates up to 20 percent

✅ Modeled on Norway policies; offsets prior HST-era gaps

✅ Backed by Renewable Transport PEI engaging MLAs

Noah Ellis, assistant director of Renewable Transport P.E.I., is asking government to introduce incentives for Islanders to buy electric cars, as cost barriers remain a key hurdle for many.

RTPEI is a group composed of high school students at Colonel Gray going into their final year."We wanted to give back and contribute to our community and our country and we thought this would be a good way to do so," Ellis told Compass.

Meeting with government

"We want to see the government bring in incentives for electric vehicles, similar to New Brunswick's rebate program, because it would make them more competitive with their gasoline counterparts," Ellis said.

'We wanted to give back and contribute to our community … we thought this would be a good way to do so.'— Noah Ellis

Ellis said the group has spoken with opposition MLAs and is meeting with cabinet ministers soon to discuss subsidies for Islanders to buy electric cars, noting that Atlantic Canadians are less inclined to buy EVs compared to the rest of the country.

He referred to Norway as a prime example for the province to model potential incentives, even as Labrador's EV infrastructure gaps underscore regional challenges — a country that, as of last year, announced nearly 40 per cent of the nation's newly registered passenger vehicles as electric powered.

'Incentives that are fiscally responsible'

Ellis said they group isn't looking for anything less than a 20 per cent incentive on electric vehicles — 10 per cent higher than the provinces cancelled hybrid car tax rebate that existed prior to HST.

"Electric vehicle incentives do work we just have to work with economists and environmentalists, and address critics of EV subsidies, to find the right balance of incentives that are fiscally responsible for the province but will also be effective," Ellis said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Australian VRF Battery Market sees a commercial-scale solar and storage demonstration by Energy Made Clean, Sumitomo Electric, and TNG, integrating vanadium redox flow systems with microgrids for grid-scale renewable energy reliability across Australia.

Key Points

A growing sector deploying vanadium redox flow batteries for scalable, long-life energy storage across Australia.

✅ Commercial demo by EMC, Sumitomo Electric, and TNG

✅ Integrates solar PV with containerized VRF systems

✅ Targets microgrids and grid-scale renewable reliability

Carnegie Wave Energy’s 100 per cent owned subsidiary, Energy Made Clean, is set to develop and demonstrate a commercial-scale solar and battery storage plant in Australia, after entering into a joint venture targeting Australia’s vanadium redox flow (VRF) battery market.

Carnegie said on Tuesday that EMC had signed a memorandum of understanding with Japanese company Sumitomo Electric Industries and ASX-listed TNG Limited to assess the potential applications of VRF batteries through an initial joint energy storage demonstration project in Australia.

The deal builds on a June 2015 MOU between EMC and emerging strategic metals company TNG, to establish the feasibility of Vanadium Redox batteries. And it comes less than two months after Carnegie took full ownership of the Perth-based EMC, which has established itself as one of the Australia’s foremost micro-grid and battery storage businesses, reflecting momentum in areas such as green hydrogen microgrids internationally.

Energy Made Clean’s main role in the partnership will be to identify commercial project site opportunities, while also designing and supplying a compatible balance of plant – likely to include solar PV – to integrate with the VRF containerised system being supplied by Sumitomo.

The demonstration will be of commercial size, to best showcase Sumitomo’s technology, the companies said; with each party contributing to their core competencies, and subsequently cooperating on the marketing and sales of VRF batteries.

As we have noted on RE before, vanadium redox flow batteries are tipped to be one of the key players in the booming global energy storage market, alongside innovations like gravity storage investment, as more and more renewable energy sources are brought onto grids around the world.

The batteries are considered uniquely suited to on- and off-grid energy storage applications, and emerging models like vehicle-to-building power, due to their scalability and long asset lives, with deep and very high cycling capability.

Australia, as well as being a key market for battery storage uptake, has seen a recent grid rule change that could impact big batteries, and has been noted for its potential to become a top global producer of vanadium – a metal found in a range of mineral deposits.

A number of Australian companies are already active in the local vanadium redox flow battery market, including miner Australian Vanadium – which recently inked a deal with Germany battery maker Gildemeister Energy Storage to sell its CellCube range of VRF batteries – and Brisbane based battery maker Redflow.

Energy Made Clean CEO John Davidson said the signing of the MOU would bring key industry innovators together to help revolutionise the vanadium redox flow battery market in Australia.

“This strategic MoU represents a compelling three-way tie-up of an emerging miner, a manufacturer and an integrator to accelerate the development of a major new energy growth market,” Davidson said.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Hydro Rate Cuts address soaring electricity prices, lowering hydro bills via refinancing, FAO-reviewed costs, and long-term infrastructure investment, balancing ratepayer relief with a projected $21 billion net expense over 30 years.

Key Points

Ontario electricity bill relief spreading infrastructure and green energy costs over 30 years via refinancing.

✅ 25% average bill cut; $156 to $123 per month

✅ FAO projects $21B net cost over 30 years

✅ Costs shifted to long-term debt, infrastructure, green energy

Premier Kathleen Wynne is making no apologies for the Liberals’ 25 per cent hydro rate cuts, legislation to lower electricity rates that a legislative watchdog warns will cost at least $21 billion over three decades.

In the wake of Financial Accountability Officer Stephen LeClair’s report on the “Fair Hydro Plan,” Wynne emphasized that Ontario electricity consumers demanded and deserved relief.

“You all read the newspaper, you listen to the radio and you watch television — you know the problems that families are having around the province paying for their electricity costs,” the premier told reporters Thursday in Timmins.

That’s why the government moved forward with a rate cut, with recent Hydro One reconnections underscoring the stakes, that will see the average household’s monthly hydro bill drop from $156 to $123 once it fully takes effect next month.

In a 15-page report released Wednesday, the financial accountability officer estimated the initiative would cost the province $45 billion over the next 29 years amid a cabinet warning on prices that electricity costs could soar, while saving ratepayers $24 billion for a next expense of $21 billion.

Both the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats oppose the Liberal rate cut, arguing that a deal with Quebec would not lower hydro bills.

But Wynne said the government has in effect renegotiated a mortgage so it will bankroll hydro infrastructure improvements over a longer time period, though some have urged the next government to scrap the Fair Hydro Plan and review options, in order to give customers a break now.

“We’re talking about a 30-year window here. It took at least 30 years, probably 40 years, to let the electricity system degrade to the stage that it had in 2003,” she said, noting “we were having blackouts and brownouts around the province” before her party took office that year.

“There were thousands of kilometres of line that needed to be rebuilt . . . that work hadn’t been done over those generations, so electricity costs were low over that period of time but the work wasn’t being done.”

When her predecessor Dalton McGuinty came to power in 2003, Wynne said Queen’s Park began spending billions on infrastructure improvements, including expensive subsidies for green energy, such as wind turbines and solar panels.

“There’s a lot of work that has been done since then. Literally thousands of kilometres of line have been rebuilt. The coal-fired plants have been shut down. The air is cleaner. There’s less pollution in the air. The system is reliable and renewable,” she said.

“So there’s a cost associated with that and what was happening was that was work that had to be done — and all of those costs were on the shoulders of people today.”

Wynne noted “this electricity grid is an asset that is going to be used for generations to come.”

“My grandchildren are going to benefit from this asset, so I think it’s fair that we spread the cost of that over that 30-year period,” she said.

“That’s how we made this decision.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CrashOverride malware is a Russian-linked ICS cyberweapon targeting power grids, SCADA systems, and utility networks; linked to Electrum/Sandworm, it threatens U.S. transmission and distribution with modular attacks and time-bomb payloads across critical infrastructure.

Key Points

A modular ICS malware linked to Russian actors that disrupts power grids via SCADA abuse and forced breaker outages.

✅ Targets breakers and substation devices to sustain outages

✅ Modular payloads adapt to ICS protocols and vendors

✅ Enables timed, multi-site attacks against transmission and distribution

Hackers allied with the Russian government have devised a cyberweapon that has the potential to be the most disruptive yet against electric systems that Americans depend on for daily life, according to U.S. researchers.

The malware, which researchers have dubbed CrashOverride, is known to have disrupted only one energy system — in Ukraine in December. In that incident, the hackers briefly shut down one-fifth of the electric power generated in Kiev.

But with modifications, it could be deployed against U.S. electric transmission and distribution systems to devastating effect, said Sergio Caltagirone, director of threat intelligence for Dragos, a cybersecurity firm that studied the malware and issued a recent report.

And Russian government hackers have shown their interest in targeting U.S. energy and other utility systems, with reports of suspected breaches at U.S. power plants in recent years, researchers said.

“It’s the culmination of over a decade of theory and attack scenarios,” Caltagirone warned. “It’s a game changer.”

The revelation comes as the U.S. government is investigating a wide-ranging, ambitious effort by the Russian government last year to disrupt the U.S. presidential election and influence its outcome, and has issued a condemnation of Russian power grid hacking as well. That campaign employed a variety of methods, including hacking hundreds of political and other organizations, and leveraging social media, U.S. officials said.

Dragos has named the group that created the new malware Electrum, and it has determined with high confidence that Electrum used the same computer systems as the hackers who attacked the Ukraine electric grid in 2015. That attack, which left 225,000 customers without power, was carried out by Russian government hackers, other U.S. researchers concluded. U.S. government officials have not officially attributed that attack to the Russian government, but some privately say they concur with the private-sector analysis.

“The same Russian group that targeted U.S. [industrial control] systems in 2014, including the Dragonfly campaign documented by Symantec, turned out the lights in Ukraine in 2015,” said John Hultquist, who analyzed both incidents while at iSight Partners, a cyber-intelligence firm now owned by FireEye, where he is director of intelligence analysis. Hultquist’s team had dubbed the group Sandworm.

“We believe that Sandworm is tied in some way to the Russian government — whether they’re contractors or actual government officials, we’re not sure,” he said. “We believe they are linked to the security services.”

Sandworm and Electrum may be the same group or two separate groups working within the same organization, but the forensic evidence shows they are related, said Robert M. Lee, chief executive of Dragos.

The Department of Homeland Security, which works with the owners of the nation’s critical infrastructure systems, did not respond to a request for comment Sunday.

Energy-sector experts said that the new malware is cause for concern, but that the industry is seeking to develop ways to disrupt attackers who breach their systems, including documented access to U.S. utility control rooms in prior incidents.

“U.S. utilities have been enhancing their cybersecurity, but attacker tools like this one pose a very real risk to reliable operation of power systems,” said Michael J. Assante, who worked at Idaho National Labs and is a former chief security officer of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, where he oversaw the rollout of industry cybersecurity standards.

CrashOverride is only the second instance of malware specifically tailored to disrupt or destroy industrial control systems. Stuxnet, the worm created by the United States and Israel to disrupt Iran’s nuclear capability, was an advanced military-grade weapon designed to affect centrifuges that enrich uranium.

In 2015, the Russians used malware to gain access to the power supply network in western Ukraine, but it was hackers at the keyboards who remotely manipulated the control systems to cause the blackout — not the malware itself, Hultquist said.

With CrashOverride, “what is particularly alarming . . . is that it is all part of a larger framework,” said Dan Gunter, a senior threat hunter for Dragos.

The malware is like a Swiss Army knife, where you flip open the tool you need and where different tools can be added to achieve different effects, Gunter said.

Theoretically, the malware can be modified to attack different types of industrial control systems, such as water and gas. However, the adversary has not demonstrated that level of sophistication, Lee said.

Still, the attackers probably had experts and resources available not only to develop the framework but also to test it, Gunter said. “This speaks to a larger effort often associated with nation-state or highly funded team operations.”

One of the most insidious tools in CrashOverride manipulates the settings on electric power control systems. It scans for critical components that operate circuit breakers and opens the circuit breakers, which stops the flow of electricity. It continues to keep them open even if a grid operator tries to close them, creating a sustained power outage.

The malware also has a “wiper” component that erases the software on the computer system that controls the circuit breakers, forcing the grid operator to revert to manual operations, which means driving to the substation to restore power.

With this malware, the attacker can target multiple locations with a “time bomb” functionality and set the malware to trigger simultaneously, Lee said. That could create outages in different areas at the same time.

The outages would last a few hours and probably not more than a couple of days, Lee said. That is because the U.S. electric industry has trained its operators to handle disruptions caused by large storms, alongside a renewed focus on protecting the grid in response to recent alerts. “They’re used to having to restore power with manual operations,” he said.

So although the malware is “a significant leap forward in tradecraft, it’s also not a doomsday scenario,” he said.

The malware samples were first obtained by ESET, a Slovakian research firm, which shared some of them with Dragos. ESET has dubbed the malware Industroyer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

EV Opportunity for Utilities spans EV charging infrastructure, grid modernization, demand response, time-of-use rates, and customer engagement, enabling predictable load growth, flexible charging, and stronger utility branding amid electrification and resilience challenges.

Key Points

It is the strategy to leverage EV adoption for load growth, grid flexibility, and branded charging services.

✅ Monetizes EV load via TOU rates, managed charging, and V2G.

✅ Uses rate-based infrastructure to expand equitable charging access.

✅ Enhances resilience and DER integration through smart grid upgrades.

Tesla recently announced delivery of the first 30 production units of its Model 3 electric vehicle (EV). EV technology has generated plenty of buzz in the electric utility industry over the past decade and, with last week’s announcement, it would appear that projections of a significant market presence for EVs could give way to rapid growth.

Tesla’s announcement could not have come at a more critical time for utilities, which face unprecedented challenges. For the past 15 years, utilities have been grappling with increasingly frequent “100-year storms,” including hurricanes, snowstorms and windstorms, underscoring the reality that the grid’s aging infrastructure is not fit to withstand increasingly extreme weather, along with other threats, such as cyber attacks.

Coupled with flat or declining load growth, changing regulations, increasing customer demand, and new technology penetration, these challenges have given the electric utility industry good reason to describe its future as “threatened.” These trends, each exacerbating the others, mean essentially that utilities can no longer rely on traditional ways of doing business.

EVs have significant potential to help relieve the industry’s pessimistic outlook. This article will explore what EV growth could mean for utilities and how they can begin establishing critical foundations today to help ensure their ability to exploit this opportunity.

The opportunity

At the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) Global Summit 2017, BNEF Advisory Board Chairman Michael Liebreich announced the group’s prediction that electric vehicles will comprise 35-47 percent of new vehicle sales globally by 2040.

U.S. utilities have good reason to be optimistic about this potential new revenue source, as EV-driven demand growth could be substantial according to federal lab analyses. If all 236 million gas-powered cars in the U.S. — average miles driven per year: 12,000 — were replaced with electric vehicles, which travel an average of 100 miles on 34 kWh, they would require 956 billion kWh each year. At a national average cost of $0.12 / kWh, the incremental energy sold by utilities in the U.S. would bring in around $115 billion per year in new revenues. A variety of factors could increase or decrease this number, but it still represents an attractive opportunity for the utility sector.

Capturing this burgeoning market is not simply a matter of increased demand; it will also require utilities to be predictable, adaptable and brandable. Moreover, while the aggregate increase in demand might be only 3-4 percent, demand can come as a flexible and adaptable load through targeted programming. Also, if utilities target the appropriate customer groups, they can brand themselves as the providers of choice for EV charging. The power of stronger branding, in a sector that’s experiencing significant third-party encroachment, could be critical to the ongoing financial health of U.S. utilities.

Many utilities are already keenly aware of the EV opportunity and are speeding down this road (no pun intended) as part of their plans for utility business model reinvention. Following are several questions to be asked when evaluating the EV opportunity.

Is the EV opportunity feasible with today’s existing grid?

According to a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the grid is already capable of supporting more than 150 million pure electric vehicles, even as electric cars could challenge state grids in the years ahead, a number equal to at least 63 percent of all gas-powered cars on the road today. This is significant, considering that a single EV plugged into a Level 2 charger can double a home’s peak electricity demand. Assuming all 236 million car owners eventually convert to EVs, utilities will need to increase grid capacity. However, today’s grid already has the capacity to accommodate the most optimistic prediction of 35-47 percent EV penetration by 2040, which is great news.

Should the EV opportunity be owned by utilities?

There’s significant ongoing debate among regulators and consumer advocacy groups as to whether utilities should own the EV charging infrastructure, with fights for control over charging reflecting broader market concerns today. Those who are opposed to this believe that the utilities will have an unfair pricing advantage that will inhibit competition. Similarly, if the infrastructure is incorporated into the rate base, those who do not own electric vehicles would be subsidizing the cost for those who do.

If the country is going to meet the future demands of electric cars, the charging infrastructure and power grid will need help, and electric utilities are in the best position to address the problem, as states like California explore EVs for grid stability through utility-led initiatives that can scale. By rate basing the charging infrastructure, utilities can provide charging services to a wider range of customers. This would not favor one economic group over another, which many fear would happen if the private sector were to control the EV charging market.

If you build it, will they come?

At this point, we can conclude that growth in EV market penetration is a tremendous opportunity for utilities, one that’s most advantageous to electricity customers if utilities own some, if not all, of the charging infrastructure. The question is, if you build it, will they come — and what are the consequences if they don’t?

With any new technology, there’s always a debate centered around adoption timing — in this case, whether to build the infrastructure ahead of demand for EV or wait for adoption to spike. Either choice could have disastrous consequences if not considered properly. If utilities wait for the adoption to spike, their lack of EV charging infrastructure could stunt the growth of the EV sector and leave an opening for third-party providers. Moreover, waiting too long will inhibit GHG emissions reduction efforts and generally complicate EV technology adoption. On the other hand, building too soon could lead to costly stranded assets. Both problems are rooted in the inability to control adoption timing, and, until recently, utilities didn’t have the means or the savvy to influence adoption directly.

How should utilities prepare for the EV?

Beyond the challenges of developing the hardware, partnerships and operational programs to accommodate EV, including leveraging energy storage and mobile chargers for added flexibility, influencing the adoption of the infrastructure will be a large part of the challenge. A compelling solution to this problem is to develop an engaged customer base.

A more engaged customer base will enable utilities to brand themselves as preferred EV infrastructure providers and, similarly, empower them to influence the adoption rate. There are five key factors in any sector that influence innovation adoption:

1. Relative advantage – how improved an innovation is over the previous generation.

2. Compatibility – the level of compatibility an innovation has with an individual’s life.

3. Complexity – if the innovation is to difficult to use, individuals will not likely adopt it.

4. Trialability – how easily an innovation can be experimented with as it’s being adopted.

5. Observability – the extent that an innovation is visible to others.

Although much of EV adoption will depend on the private vehicle sector influencing these five factors, there’s a huge opportunity for utilities to control the compatibility, complexity and observability of the EV. According to  “The New Energy Consumer: Unleashing Business Value in a Digital World,” utilities can influence customers’ EV adoption through digital customer engagement. Studies show that digitally engaged customers:

• have stronger interest and greater likelihood to be early EV adopters;

• are 16 percent more likely to purchase home-based electric vehicle charging stations and installation services;

• are 17 percent more likely to sign up for financing for home-based electric vehicle charging stations; and

• increase the adoption of consumer-focused programs.

These findings suggest that if utilities are going to seize the full potential of the EV opportunity, they must start engaging customers now so they can appropriately influence the timing and branding of EV charging assets.

How can utilities engage consumers in preparation?

If utilities establish the groundwork to engage customers effectively, they can reduce the risks of waiting for an adoption spike and of building and investing in the asset too soon. To improve customer engagement, utilities need to:

1. Change their customer conversations from bills, kWh, and outages, to personalized, interesting topics, communicated at appropriate intervals and via appropriate communication channels, to gain customers’ attention.

2. Establish their roles as trusted advisors by presenting useful, personalized recommendations that benefit customers. These tips should change dynamically with changing customer behavior, or they risk becoming stagnant and redundant, thereby causing customers to lose interest.

3. Convert the perception of the utility as a monopolistic, inflexible entity to a desirable, consumer-oriented brand through appropriate EV marketing.

It’s critical to understand that this type of engagement strategy doesn’t even have to provide EV-specific messaging at first. It can start by engaging customers through topics that are relevant and unique, through established or evolving customer-facing programs, such as EE, BDR, TOU, HER.

As lines of communication open up between utility and users, utilities can begin to understand their customers’ energy habits on a more granular level. This intelligence can be used by business analysts to help educate program developers on the optimal EV program timing. For example, as customers become interested in services in which EV owners typically enlist, utilities can target them for EV program marketing. As the number of these customers grows, the window for program development opens, and their levels of interest can be used to inform program and marketing timelines.

While all this may seem like an added nuisance to an EV asset development strategy, there’s significant risk of losing this new asset to third-party providers. This is a much greater burden to utilities than spending the time to properly own the EV opportunity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Site C Project Delay raises BC Hydro costs as Christy Clark warns $600 million impact; NDP and Greens seek BCUC review of the hydroelectric dam on the Peace River, challenging evictions and construction contracts.

Key Points

A potential slowdown of B.C.'s Site C dam, risking $600M overruns, evictions, and schedule delays pending a BCUC review.

✅ Clark warns $600M cost if river diversion slips a year

✅ NDP-Green seek BCUC review; request to pause contracts, evictions

✅ Peace River hydro dam; schedule critical to budget, ratepayers

Premier Christy Clark is warning the NDP and Greens that delaying work on the Site C project in northeast British Columbia could cost taxpayers $600 million.

NDP Leader John Horgan wrote to BC Hydro last week asking it to suspend the evictions of two homeowners and urging it not to sign any new contracts on the $8.6-billion hydroelectric dam until a new government has gained the confidence of the legislature.

But Clark says in letters sent to Horgan and Green Leader Andrew Weaver on Tuesday that the evictions are necessary as part of a road and bridge construction project that are needed to divert a river in September 2019.

Any delay could postpone the diversion by a year and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, she says.

“With a project of this size and scale, keeping to a tight schedule is critical to delivering a completed project on time and on budget,” she says. “The requests contained in your letter are not without consequences to the construction schedule and ultimately have financial ramifications to ratepayers.”

The premier has asked Horgan and Weaver to reply by Saturday on whether they still want to put the evictions on hold.

She also asks whether they want the government to issue a “tools down” request to BC Hydro on other decisions that she says are essential to maintaining the budget and construction schedule.

An agreement between the NDP and Green party was signed last week that would allow the New Democrats to form a minority government, ousting Clark's Liberals.

The agreement includes a promise to refer the Site C project to the B.C. Utilities Commission to determine its economic viability.

Some analysts argue that better B.C.-Alberta power integration could improve climate outcomes and market flexibility.

But Clark says the project is likely to progress past the “point of no return” before a review can be completed.

Clark did not define what she meant by “point of no return,” nor did she explain how she reached the $600-million figure. Her press secretary Stephen Smart referred questions to BC Hydro, which did not immediately respond.

During prolonged drought conditions, BC Hydro has had to adapt power generation across the province, affecting planning assumptions.

In a written response to Clark, Weaver says before he can comment on her assertions he requires access to supporting evidence, including signed contracts, the project schedule and potential alternative project timelines.

“Please let me express my disappointment in how your government is choosing to proceed with this project,” he says.

“Your government is turning a significant capital project that potentially poses massive economic risks to British Columbians into a political debate rather than one informed by evidence and supported by independent analysis.”

The dam will be the third on the Peace River, flooding an 83-kilometre stretch of valley, and local First Nations, landowners and farmers have fiercely opposed the project.

Construction began two years ago.

A report written by University of British Columbia researchers in April argued it wasn't too late to press pause on the project and that the electricity produced by Site C won't be fully required for nearly a decade after it's complete.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News