Perhaps 30 years hence, we may reflect upon today's high oil prices as a blessing in disguise that paved the way for a reshaping of Ontario's auto sector enabled by the electric grid. The pain at the pumps for all, the anger of the auto workers at the prospect of losing their livelihoods and the relentless pressures of the global energy markets ought to focus our minds and sharpen the search for credible solutions.
We need to get beyond the overheated rhetoric and the finger-pointing to develop alternate pathways for environmentally sustainable mobility at reasonable cost.
A strategic convergence of the power and the transport sectors is a key part of the answer, achievable in the near to mid term (five to seven years). The primary limitations are a lack of clear policy focus on innovation and our collective inability to marshal resources and align strategic developments across sector interests, agencies and different levels of government. There exists an enormous potential to displace gasoline and to reduce cost to consumers by use of electricity through plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
A conventional hybrid derives all its energy for the drive train from gasoline. The plug-in hybrid is fundamentally different. It derives most of its energy from the electricity grid and supplements any additional needs with a gasoline engine in a seamless fashion. It combines the best of both worlds – the advantages of an electric vehicle charged during “off-peak” times on the power grid and gasoline only when needed for unlimited driving range.
Given that more than half of cars are driven less than 50 kilometres a day, this flexibility offers peace of mind to the consumer and a promising path for meeting the demanding standards of reliable low-cost transportation. From a strategic perspective, electrification of the transportation sector can deliver substantial environmental benefits (low greenhouse gas emissions), lower cost to consumers and increased revenues to utilities. Reducing the dependence on oil-based transportation has the added benefit of moderating the pressures on security of long-term supply in a global marketplace driven by explosive demand from emerging economies.
The electricity infrastructure is designed to meet the highest expected “peak” demand for power. The system operates at near capacity for a few hundred hours (about 5 per cent of the time) a year. For the remainder of the time, the power system is capable of generating and delivering a substantial amount of energy needed to fuel the car batteries at “off-peak” hours.
For example, Ontario's requirements vary from day to day with a peak demand of about 26,000 MW, dropping to about half of that at night. Fuelling cars on the grid from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. provides a lucrative opportunity to charge several million vehicles. This would also provide valuable storage capacity on the grid to help improve the overall utilization of the system and to accommodate increased penetration of intermittent renewable generation resources, such as wind power.
Southern California Edison estimates that four million vehicles could be charged without exceeding peak load. Studies show 84 per cent of cars, pickup trucks and SUVs in the United States could be supported by the existing infrastructure with a gasoline displacement potential of greater than 50 per cent of the country's oil imports. A detailed nationwide analysis of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that takes into account emissions from the electricity sector and the plug-in hybrid vehicles, confirms significant environmental benefits – cumulative greenhouse gas reductions that range from 3.4 to 10.3 billion metric tonnes over the 2010-2050 time frame.
So what's in it for the consumer? A visit to the gas station perhaps once a month rather than once a week. (And the costs would be lower still if the “smart grid” can deliver price differentiated “off-peak” energy at a lower cost.) An electrically charged vehicle is cheaper to fuel by a factor of four over an equivalent conventional vehicle. It runs on about a dollar per gallon compared to four dollars per gallon at current prices. Higher initial costs, however, may be a barrier to consumers.
It's important, however, not to confine our thinking only to the auto sector. By increasing overall electricity consumption without a major requirement for upgrades to the existing electricity infrastructure, fixed costs could be spread over a larger base with benefits to consumers. The low carbon intensity of Canada's power sector can make it a powerful tool for de-carbonizing the economy and the transport sector in particular. Any significant use of plug-ins would help moderate the pressures on global oil demand and increase security of supply.
The low carbon intensity of Canada's power sector is a huge advantage that has not been recognized or leveraged to good effect. What we need is to develop an in-depth consideration of policy options and strategic alternatives for rapid implementation.
A century ago, Lord Selborne, the first lord of the Admiralty, dismissed the idea of fuelling the British navy with something other than coal. “The substitution of coal for oil is impossible,” he pronounced, “because oil does not exist in this world in sufficient quantities.” Winston Churchill, seven years later, saw that oil would increase speed and reduce fuelling time – strategic advantages – and committed the navy to the new fuel. Are electrons about to do the same to oil a century later?
White Pines Project cancellation highlights Ontario's wind farm contract dispute in Prince Edward County, involving IESO approvals, Progressive Conservatives' legislation, potential court action, and costs to ratepayers amid green energy policy shifts.
Key Points
The termination effort for Ontario's White Pines wind farm contract, triggering legal, legislative, and cost disputes.
✅ Contract with IESO dates to 2009; final approval during election
✅ PCs seek legislation insulating taxpayers from litigation
✅ Cancellation could exceed $100M; cost impact on ratepayers
Cancelling an eastern Ontario green energy project that has been under development for nearly a decade could cost more than $100 million, the president of the company said Wednesday, warning that the dispute could be headed to the courts.
Ontario's governing Progressive Conservatives said this week that one of their first priorities during the legislature's summer sitting would be to cancel the contract for the White Pines Project in Prince Edward County.
Ian MacRae, president of WPD Canada, the company behind the project, said he was stunned by the news given that the project is weeks away from completion.
"What our lawyers are telling us is we have a completely valid contract that we've had since 2009 with the (Independent Electricity System Operator). ... There's no good reason for the government to breach that contract," he said.
The government has also not reached out to discuss the cancellation, he said. Meanwhile, construction on the site is in full swing, he said.
"Over the last couple weeks we've had an average of 100 people on site every day," he said. "The footprint of the project is 100 per cent in. So, all the access roads, the concrete for the base foundations, much of the electrical infrastructure. The sub-station is nearing completion."
The project includes nine wind turbines meant to produce enough electricity to power just over 3,000 homes annually, even as Ontario looks to build on an electricity deal with Quebec for additional supply. All of the turbines are expected to be installed over the next three weeks, with testing scheduled for the following month.
MacRae couldn't say for certain who would have to pay for the cancellation, electricity ratepayers or taxpayers.
"Somehow that money would come from IESO and it would be my assumption that would end up somehow on the ratepayers, despite legislation to lower electricity rates now in place," he said. "We just need to see what the government has in mind and who will foot the bill."
Progressive Conservative house leader Todd Smith, who represents the riding where the project is being built, said the legislation to cancel the project will also insulate taxpayers from domestic litigation over the dismantling of green energy projects.
"This is something that the people of Prince Edward County have been fighting ... for seven years," he said. "This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anybody that this was at the top of the agenda for the incoming government, which has also eyed energy independence in recent decisions."
Smith questioned why Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator gave the final approval for the project during the spring election campaign.
"There's a lot of questions about how this ever got greenlighted in the first place," he said. "This project was granted its notice to proceed two days into the election campaign ... when (the IESO) should have been in the caretaker mode."
Terry Young, the IESO's vice president of policy, engagement and innovation, said the agency could not comment because of the pending introduction of legislation to cancel the deal, following a recent auditor-regulator dispute that drew attention to oversight.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said the new Tory government is behaving like the previous Liberal government by cancelling energy projects and tearing up contracts amid ongoing debates over Ontario's hydro mess and affordability. She likened the Tory plan to the Liberal gas plant scandal that saw the government relocate two plants at a substantial cost to taxpayers.
Ermineskin First Nation Solar Project delivers a 1 MW distributed generation array with 3,500 panels, selling power to Alberta's grid, driving renewable energy revenue, jobs, and regional economic development with partner SkyFire Energy.
Key Points
A 1 MW, 3,500-panel distributed generation plant selling power to Alberta's grid to support revenue and jobs.
✅ Annual revenue projected at $80k-$150k, scalable
✅ Built with SkyFire Energy; expansion planned next summer
The switch will soon be flipped on a solar energy project that will generate tens of thousands of dollars for Ermineskin First Nation, while energizing economic development across Alberta, where selling renewables is emerging as a promising opportunity.
Built on six acres, the one-megawatt generator and its 3,500 solar panels will produce power to be sold into the province’s electrical grid, providing annual revenues for the band of $80,000 to $150,000, depending on energy demand and pricing.
The project cost $2.7 million, including connection costs and background studies, said Sam Minde, chief executive officer of the band-owned Neyaskweyahk Group of Companies Inc.
It was paid for with grants from the Western Economic Diversification Fund and the province’s Climate Leadership Plan, and, amid Ottawa’s green electricity contracting push, is expected to be connected to the grid by mid-December.
“It’s going to be the biggest distributed generation in Alberta,” he said.
Called the Sundancer generator, it was built and will be operated through a partnership with SkyFire Energy, reflecting how renewable power developers design better projects by combining diverse resources.
Minde said the project’s benefits extend beyond Ermineskin First Nation, one of four First Nations at Maskwacis, 20 km north of Ponoka, in a province where renewable energy surge could power thousands of jobs.
“Our nation is looking to do the best it can in business. It’s competitive, but at the same time, what is good for us is good for the region.
“If we’re creating jobs, we’re going to be building up our economy. And if you look at our region right now, we need to continue to create opportunities and jobs.”
Electricity prices are rock bottom right now, in the six to nine cents per kilowatt hour range, with recent Alberta solar contracts coming in below natural gas on cost. During the oilsands boom, when power demand was skyrocketing, the price was in the 16 to 18 cent range.
That means there is a lot of room for bigger returns for Ermineskin in the future, especially if pipelines such as TransMountain get going or the oilsands pick up again, and as Alberta solar growth accelerates in the years ahead.
The band is so confident that Sundancer will prove a success that there are plans to double it in size, a strategy echoed by community-scale efforts such as the Summerside solar project that demonstrate scalability. By next summer, a $1.5-million to $1.7-million project funded by the band will be built on another six acres nearby.
Minde said the project is an example of the community’s connection with the environment being used to create opportunities and embracing technologies that will likely figure large in the world’s energy future.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
California Heat Wave Grid Emergency sees CAISO issue Stage 3 alerts as record demand, extreme heat, and climate change strain renewable energy; conservation efforts avert rolling blackouts and protect grid reliability statewide.
Key Points
A grid emergency in California's heat wave, with CAISO Stage 3 alerts amid record demand and risk of rolling blackouts.
✅ CAISO triggered Stage 3 alerts, then downgraded by 8 pm PT
✅ Record 52,061 MW demand; conservation reduced grid stress
✅ Extreme heat and climate change heightened outage risks
California has avoided ordering rolling blackouts after electricity demand reached a record-high Tuesday night from excessive heat across the state, even as energy experts warn the U.S. grid faces mounting climate stresses.
The California Independent System Operator, which oversees the state’s electrical grid, imposed its highest level energy emergency on Tuesday, a step that comes before ordering rolling blackouts and allows the state to access emergency power sources.
The Office of Emergency Services also sent a text alert to residents requesting them to conserve power. The operator downgraded the Stage 3 alert around 8:00 p.m. PT on Tuesday and said that “consumer conservation played a big part in protecting electric grid reliability,” and in bolstering grid resilience overall.
The state capital of Sacramento reached 116 degrees Fahrenheit on Tuesday, according to the National Weather Service, surpassing a record that was set almost 100 years ago. And nearly a half-dozen cities in the San Francisco Bay Area tied or set all-time highs, the agency said.
CAISO said peak power demand on Tuesday reached 52,061 megawatts, surpassing a previous high of 50,270 megawatts on July 24, 2006, while nearby B.C. electricity demand has also hit records during extreme weather.
While the operator did not order rolling blackouts, three Northern California cities saw brief power outages, and severe storms have caused similar disruptions statewide in recent months. As of 7:00 am PT on Wednesday, nearly 8,000 customers in California were without power, according to PowerOutage.us.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, in a Twitter video on Tuesday, warned the temperatures across California were unprecedented and the state is headed into the worst part of the heat wave, which is on track to be the hottest and longest on record for September.
“The risk for outages is real and it’s immediate,” Newsom said. “These triple-digit temperatures throughout much of the state are leading, not surprisingly, to record demand on the energy grid.”
The governor urged residents to pre-cool their homes earlier in the day when more power is available and turn thermostats to 78 degrees or higher after 4:00 pm PT. “Everyone has to do their part to help step up for just a few more days,” Newsom said.
The possibility for widespread outages reflects how power grids in California and other states are becoming more vulnerable to climate-related disasters such as heat waves, storms and wildfires across California.
California, which has set a goal to transition to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, has shuttered a slew of gas power plants in the past few years, leaving the state increasingly dependent on solar energy.
At times, the state has produced a clean energy surplus during peak solar generation, underscoring the challenges of balancing supply and demand.
The megadrought in the American West has generated the driest two decades in the region in at least 1,200 years, and human-caused climate change has fueled the problem, scientists said earlier this year. Conditions will likely continue through 2022 and persist for years.
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.
Australian Electric Vehicle Sales tripled in 2019 amid expanding charging infrastructure and more models, but market share remains low, constrained by limited government policy, weak incentives, and absent emissions standards despite growing ultra-fast chargers.
Key Points
EV units sold in Australia; in 2019 they tripled to 6,718, but market share was just 0.6%.
✅ Sales rose from 2,216 (2018) to 6,718 (2019); ~80% were BEVs.
✅ Public charging sites reached 2,307; fast chargers up 40% year-on-year.
✅ Policy gaps and absent standards limit model supply and EV uptake.
Sales of electric vehicles in Australia tripled in 2019 despite a lack of government support, according to the industry’s peak body.
The country’s network of EV charging stations was also growing, the Electric Vehicle Council’s annual report found, including a rise in the number of faster charging stations that let drivers recharge a car in about 15 minutes.
But the report, released on Wednesday, found the market share for electric vehicles was still only 0.6% of new vehicle sales – well behind the 2.5% to 5% in other developed countries.
The chief executive of the council, Behyad Jafari, said the rise in sales was down to more models becoming available. There are now 28 electric models on sale, with eight priced below $65,000.
Six more were due to arrive before the end of 2021, including two priced below $50,000, the council’s report said.
“We have repeatedly heard from car companies that they were planning to bring vehicles here, but Australia doesn’t have that policy support.”
The Morrison government promised a national electric vehicle strategy would be finalised by the middle of this year, but the policy has been delayed. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, last year accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” and force people out of four-wheel drives after the opposition set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.
Jafari cited the Kia e-Niro – an award-winning electric SUV that was being prepared for an Australian launch, but is now reportedly on hold because the manufacturer favoured shipping to countries with emissions standards.
The council’s members include BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and Harley Davidson, as well as energy, technology and charging infrastructure companies.
Sales of electric vehicles – which include plug-in hybrids – went from 2,216 in 2018 to 6,718 in 2019, the report said. Jafari said about 80% of those sales were all-electric vehicles.
There have been 3,226 electric vehicles sold in 2020, the report said, despite an overall drop of 20% in vehicle sales due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while U.S. EV sales have surged into 2024.
Jafari said: “Our report is showing that Australian consumers want these cars.
“There is no controversy that the future of the industry is electric, but at the moment the industry is looking at different markets. We want policies that show [Australia] is going on this journey.”
Government agency data has forecast that half the new cars sold will be electric by 2035, underscoring that the age of electric cars is arriving even if there is no policy to support their uptake.
Manufacturers currently selling electric cars in Australia are Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar and Renault, the report said.
Jafari said most G20 countries had emissions standards in place for vehicles sold and incentives in place to support electric vehicles, such as rebates or exemptions from charges. This hadn’t happened in Australia, he said.
The report said: “Globally, carmakers are rolling out more electric vehicle models as the electric car market expands, but so far production cannot keep up with demand. This means that without policy signals, Australians will continue to be denied access to the full global range of electric vehicles.”
On Tuesday, one Australian charging provider, Evie Networks, opened an ultra-fast station at a rest stop at Campbell Town in Tasmania – between Launceston and Hobart.
The company said the station would connect EV owners in the state’s north and south and the two 350kW chargers could recharge a vehicle in 15 minutes, highlighting whether grids have the power to charge EVs at scale. Two more sites were planned for Tasmania, the company said.
A Tasmanian government grant to support electric vehicle charging had helped finance the site. Evie was also supported with a $15m grant from the federal government’s Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
According to the council report, Australia now has 2,307 public charging stations, including 357 fast chargers – a rise of 40% in the past year.
A survey of 2,900 people in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia, carried out by NRMA, RACV and RAA on behalf of the council, found the main barriers to buying an electric vehicle were concerns over access to charging points, higher prices and uncertainty over driving range.
Consumers favoured electric vehicles because of their environmental footprint, lower maintenance costs and vehicle performance.
The report said the average battery range of electric vehicles available in Australia was 400km, but almost 80% of people thought the average was less.
According to the survey, 56% of Australians would consider an electric car when they next bought a vehicle, and in the UK, EV inquiries soared during a fuel supply crisis.
“We are far behind, but it is surmountable,” Jafari said.
The council report also rated state and territories on the policies that supported its industry and found the ACT was leading, followed by NSW and Queensland.
A review of commercial electric vehicle use found public electric bus trials were planned or under way in Queensland, NSW, WA, Victoria and ACT. There are now more than 400,000 electric buses in use around the globe.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
