The government proposed a pollution standard for power plants Wednesday that critics said flouts the spirit of a Supreme Court ruling on clean air enforcement.
The proposal would make it easier for utilities to expand plant operations or make other changes to produce more electricity without installing new pollution controls.
Critics said the Environmental Protection Agency was ignoring the justices' ruling that said a lower court erred when it sided with a coal-burning utility in seeking a similar standard.
But the EPA's assistant administrator, Bill Wehrum, said the proposal was not in conflict with the recent decision. He said that ruling dealt with the interpretation of earlier rules, not the validity of a new standard.
"It's apples and oranges," Wehrum said in a telephone interview. "We clearly have the authority" to issue the new standard, he added, which revises one proposed a year and a half ago.
The proposal would allow the use of average hourly smokestack emissions when determining whether a plant's expansion or efficiency improvements require additional pollution controls. The EPA hopes to make the proposal final before year's end.
Opponents of the hourly standard recently argued before the Supreme Court that this standard lets a plant put more smog-causing chemicals and other pollution into the air, even if hourly releases do not increase.
Environmentalists long have contended the EPA should continue using annual emissions to determine whether new pollution controls are needed under the Clean Air Act.
While not ruling directly on the legality of hourly standard, the Supreme Court said a lower court erred when it sided with Duke Energy Co. in the utility's challenge to the use of the annual standard in an enforcement case.
Duke Energy argued for the use of an hourly standard - similar to the one the EPA is proposing.
"EPA is ignoring both the Supreme Court and basic science," said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense, the winning party in the Duke Energy case.
Frank O'Donnell, president of the nonprofit Clean Air Watch, accused the EPA of "thumbing its nose at the court" by pressing ahead with the hourly emissions standard. "They're going to let power plants pollute more," O'Donnell said.
Wehrum said the proposal is intended to allow power plants to produce more electricity by eliminating regulatory barriers to efficiency. He said the EPA has examined the environmental impact of the proposed rule and determined "essentially there's no effect on the environment."
"There should be little if any effects on the level of environmental protection provided by this program," he said.
Duke Energy and other power companies have said the EPA, beginning during the Clinton administration, interpreted the Clean Air Act in such a way that it has stifled needed expansions and efficiency improvements.
Environmentalists say any major changes in a plant's operation should be accompanied by steps to capture the additional pollution that may result.
Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council which represents power companies, said the EPA proposal "allows us to make efficiency improvements that reduce carbon emissions" and help address global warming.
Segal took issue with suggestions the EPA was circumventing the Supreme Court's action in the Duke Energy case. He said the court emphasized that the EPA should have considerable deference in issuing clean air regulations.
Cape Town Renewable Energy Plan targets 450+ MW via solar, wind, and battery storage, cutting Eskom reliance, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, stabilizing electricity prices, and boosting grid resilience through municipal procurement, PPAs, and city-owned plants.
Key Points
A municipal plan to procure over 450 MW, cut Eskom reliance, stabilize prices, and reduce Cape Town emissions.
✅ Up to 150 MW from private plants within the city
✅ 300 MW to be purchased from outside Cape Town later
✅ City financing 100-200 MW of its own generation
Cape Town is seeking to secure more than 450 megawatts of power from renewable sources to cut reliance on state power utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd., where wind procurement cuts were considered during lockdown, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
South Africa’s second-biggest city is looking at a range of options, including geothermal exploration in comparable markets, and expects the bulk of the electricity to be generated from solar plants, Kadri Nassiep, the city’s executive director of energy and climate change, said in an interview.
On July 14 the city of 4.6 million people released a request for information to seek funding to build its own plants. This month or next it will seek proposals for the provision of as much as 150 megawatts from privately owned plants, largely solar additions, to be built and operated within the city, he said. As much as 300 megawatts may also be purchased at a later stage from plants outside of Cape Town, according to Nassiep.
The city could secure finance to build 100 to 200 megawatts of its own generation capacity, Nassiep said. “We realized that it is important for the city to be more in control around the pricing of the power,” he added.
Power Outages
Cape Town’s foray into the securing of power from sources other than Eskom comes after more than a decade of intermittent electricity outages, while elsewhere in Africa coal projects face scrutiny from lenders, because the utility can’t meet national demand. The government last year said municipalities could find alternative suppliers.
Earlier this month Ethekwini, the municipal area that includes the city of Durban, issued a request for information for the provision of 400 megawatts of power, similar to BC Hydro’s call for power driven by EV uptake.
The City of Johannesburg will in September seek information and proposals for the construction of a 150-megawatt solar plant, reflecting moves like Ontario’s new wind and solar procurements to tackle supply gaps, 50 megawatts of rooftop solar panels and the refurbishment of an idle gas-fired plant that could generate 20 megawatts, it said in June. It will also seek information for the installation of 100 megawatts of battery storage.
Cape Town, which uses a peak of 1,800 megawatts of electricity in winter, hopes to start generating some of its own power next year, aligning with SaskPower’s 2030 renewables plan seen in Canada, according to a statement that accompanied its request for financing proposals.
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.
25% Tariff on Canadian Imports threatens New York energy markets, disrupting hydroelectric power and natural gas supply chains, raising electricity prices, increasing gas costs, and intensifying trade tensions, policy uncertainty, and cross-border logistics risks.
Key Points
A U.S. policy imposing 25% duties on Canadian goods, risking higher New York electricity and natural gas costs.
✅ Hydroelectric and gas imports face costlier cross-border flows
✅ Higher utility bills for NY households and businesses
✅ Supply chain volatility and policy uncertainty increase
President Donald Trump announced the imposition of a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada, citing concerns over drug trafficking and illegal immigration. This decision has raised significant concerns among experts and residents in New York, who warn that the tariff could lead to increased electricity and gas prices in the state.
Impact on New York's Energy Sector
New York relies heavily on energy imports from Canada, particularly electricity and natural gas. Canada is a major supplier of hydroelectric power to the northeastern United States, including New York, with its electricity exports at risk amid trade tensions. The imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian goods could disrupt this supply chain, leading to higher energy costs for consumers and businesses in New York. Justin Wilcox, an energy analyst, stated, "If the tariff is implemented, it could lead to increased costs for electricity and gas, affecting both consumers and businesses."
Potential Economic Consequences
The increased energy costs could have broader economic implications for New York, and some experts advise against cutting Quebec's exports to avoid exacerbating market volatility. Higher electricity and gas prices may lead to increased operational costs for businesses, potentially resulting in higher prices for goods and services, while tariff threats have boosted support for Canadian energy projects that could reshape regional supply. This could exacerbate the cost-of-living challenges faced by residents and strain the state's economy.
Political and Diplomatic Reactions
The tariff has also sparked political and diplomatic reactions, including threats to cut U.S. electricity exports from Ontario that raised tensions. New York Governor Kathy Hochul expressed concern over the potential economic impact, stating, "We are closely monitoring the situation and are prepared to take necessary actions to protect New York's economy." Additionally, Canadian officials have expressed their disapproval of the tariff, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford's Washington meeting underscored ongoing discussions, emphasizing the importance of the trade relationship between the two countries.
Historical Context
This development is part of a broader pattern of trade tensions between the United States and its neighbors. In 2018, the U.S. imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, leading to retaliatory measures from Canada. The current situation underscores the ongoing challenges in international trade relations, where a recent tariff threat delayed Quebec's green energy bill and highlighted the potential domestic impacts of such policies.
The imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian imports by President Trump has raised significant concerns in New York regarding potential increases in electricity and gas prices. Experts warn that this could lead to higher costs for consumers and businesses, with broader economic implications for the state. As the situation develops, it will be crucial to monitor the responses from both state and federal officials, as well as how Canadians support tariffs on energy and minerals may influence policy, and the potential for diplomatic negotiations to address these trade tensions.
Wind And Solar Energy Growth is reshaping the global power mix, accelerating grid decarbonization as coal declines; boosted by pandemic demand drops, renewables now supply near 10% of electricity, advancing climate targets toward net-zero trajectories.
Key Points
It is the rise in wind and solar's share of electricity, driving decarbonization and displacing coal globally.
✅ Share doubled in five years across 83% of global electricity
✅ Coal's share fell; renewables neared 10% in H1 2020
✅ Growth still insufficient for 1.5 C; needs ~13% coal cuts yearly
Wind and solar energy doubled its share of the global power mix over the last five years, with renewable power records underscoring the trend, moving the world closer to a path that would limit the worst effects of global warming.
The sources of renewable energy made up nearly 10% of power in most parts of the world in the first half of this year, according to analysis from U.K. environmental group Ember, while globally over 30% of electricity is renewable in broader assessments.
That decarbonization of the power grid was boosted this year as shutdowns to contain the coronavirus reduced demand overall, leaving renewables to pick up the slack.
Ember analyzed generation in 48 countries that represent 83% of global electricity. The data showed wind and solar power increased 14% in the first half of 2020 compared with the same period last year while global demand fell 3% because of the impact of the coronavirus.
At the same time that wind turbines and solar panels have proliferated, coal’s share of the mix has fallen around the world. In some, mainly western European countries, where renewables surpassed fossil fuels, coal has been all but eliminated from electricity generation.
China relied on the dirtiest fossil fuel for 68% of its power five years ago, and solar PV growth in China has accelerated since then. That share dipped to 62% this year and renewables made up 10% of all electricity generated.
Still, the growth of renewables may not be going fast enough for the world to hit its climate goals, even as the U.S. is projected to have one-fourth of electricity from renewables soon, and coal is still being burnt for power in many parts of the world.
Coal use needs to fall by about 79% by 2030 from last year’s levels - a fall of 13% every year throughout the decade to come, and in the U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, Ember said.
New installations of wind farms are set to hold more or less steady in the next five years, according to data from BloombergNEF on deployment trends. That will make it difficult to realize a sustained pace of doubling renewable power every five years.
“If your expectations are that we need to be on target for 1.5 degrees, clearly we’re not going fast enough,” said Dave Jones, an analyst at Ember. “We’re not on a trajectory where we’re reducing coal emissions fast enough.”
European Energy Market Crisis drives record natural gas and electricity prices across the EU, as LNG supply constraints, Russian pipeline dependence, marginal pricing, and renewables integration expose volatility in liberalised power markets.
Key Points
A 2021 surge in European gas and electricity prices from supply strains, demand rebounds, and marginal pricing exposure.
✅ Record TTF gas and day-ahead power prices across Europe
✅ LNG constraints and Russian pipeline dependence tightened supply
✅ Debate over marginal pricing vs regulated models intensifies
By Ronan Bolton
The year 2021 was a turbulent one for energy markets across Europe, as Europe's energy nightmare deepened across the region. Skyrocketing natural gas prices have created a sense of crisis and will lead to cost-of-living problems for many households, as wholesale costs feed through into retail prices for gas and electricity over the coming months.
This has created immediate challenges for governments, but it should also encourage us to rethink the fundamental design of our energy markets as we seek to transition to net zero, with many viewing it as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the bloc.
This energy crisis was driven by a combination of factors: the relaxation of Covid-19 lockdowns across Europe created a surge in demand, while cold weather early in the year diminished storage levels and contributed to increasing demand from Asian economies. A number of technical issues and supply-side constraints also combined to limit imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the continent.
Europe’s reliance on pipeline imports from Russia has once again been called into question, as Gazprom has refused to ride to the rescue, only fulfilling its pre-existing contracts. The combination of these, and other, factors resulted in record prices – the European benchmark price (the Dutch TTF Gas Futures Contract) reached almost €180/MWh on 21 December, with average day-ahead electricity prices exceeding €300/MWh across much of the continent in the following days.
Countries which rely heavily on natural gas as a source of electricity generation have been particularly exposed, with governments quickly put under pressure to intervene in the market.
In Spain the government and large energy companies have clashed over a proposed windfall tax on power producers. In Ireland, where wind and gas meet much of the country’s surging electricity demand, the government is proposing a €100 rebate for all domestic energy consumers in early 2022; while the UK government is currently negotiating a sector-wide bailout of the energy supply sector and considering ending the gas-electricity price link to curb bills.
This follows the collapse of a number of suppliers who had based their business models on attracting customers with low prices by buying cheap on the spot market. The rising wholesale prices, combined with the retail price cap previously introduced by the Theresa May government, led to their collapse.
While individual governments have little control over prices in an increasingly globalised and interconnected natural gas market, they can exert influence over electricity prices as these markets remain largely national and strongly influenced by domestic policy and regulation. Arising from this, the intersection of gas and power markets has become a key site of contestation and comment about the role of government in mitigating the impacts on consumers of rising fuel bills, even as several EU states oppose major reforms amid the price spike.
Given that renewables are constituting an ever-greater share of production capacity, many are now questioning why gas prices play such a determining role in electricity markets.
As I outline in my forthcoming book, Making Energy Markets, a particular feature of the ‘European model’ of liberalised electricity trade since the 1990s has been a reliance on spot markets to improve the efficiency of electricity systems. The idea was that high marginal prices – often set by expensive-to-run gas peaking plants – would signal when capacity limits are reached, providing clear incentives to consumers to reduce or delay demand at these peak periods.
This, in theory, would lead to an overall more efficient system, and in the long run, if average prices exceeded the costs of entering the market, new investments would be made, thus pushing the more expensive and inefficient plants off the system.
The free-market model became established during a more stable era when domestically-sourced coal, along with gas purchased on long-term contracts from European sources (the North Sea and the Netherlands), constituted a much greater proportion of electricity generation.
While prices fluctuated, they were within a somewhat predictable range, and provided a stable benchmark for the long-term contracts underpinning investment decisions. This is no longer the case as energy markets become increasingly volatile and disrupted during the energy transition.
The idea that free price formation in a competitive market, with governments standing back, would benefit electricity consumers and lead to more efficient systems was rooted in sound economic theory, and is the basis on which other major commodity markets, such as metals and agricultural crops, have been organised for decades.
The free-market model applied to electricity had clear limitations, however, as the majority of domestic consumers have not been exposed directly to real-time price signals. While this is changing with the roll-out of smart meters in many countries, the extent to which the average consumer will be willing or able to reduce demand in a predicable way during peak periods remains uncertain.
Also, experience shows that governments often come under pressure to intervene in markets if prices rise sharply during periods of scarcity, thus undermining a basic tenet of the market model, with EU gas price cap strategies floated as one option.
Given that gas continues to play a crucial role in balancing supply and demand for electricity, the options available to governments are limited, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is harder than it appears for policymakers. One approach would be would be to keep faith with the liberalised market model, with limited interventions to help consumers in the short term, while ultimately relying on innovations in demand side technologies and alternatives to gas as a means of balancing systems with high shares of variable renewables.
An alternative scenario may see a return to old style national pricing policies, involving a move away from marginal pricing and spot markets, even as the EU prepares to revamp its electricity market in response. In the past, in particular during the post-WWII decades, and until markets were liberalised in the 1990s, governments have taken such an approach, centrally determining prices based on the costs of delivering long term system plans. The operation of gas plants and fuel procurement would become a much more regulated activity under such a model.
Many argue that this ‘traditional model’ better suits a world in which governments have committed to long-term decarbonisation targets, and zero marginal cost sources, such as wind and solar, play a more dominant role in markets and begin to push down prices.
A crucial question for energy policy makers is how to exploit this deflationary effect of renewables and pass-on cost savings to consumers, whilst ensuring that the lights stay on.
Despite the promise of storage technologies such as grid-scale batteries and hydrogen produced from electrolysis, aside from highly polluting coal, no alternative to internationally sourced natural gas as a means of balancing electricity systems and ensuring our energy security is immediately available.
This fact, above all else, will constrain the ambitions of governments to fundamentally transform energy markets.
Ronan Bolton is Reader at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh and Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre. His book Making Energy Markets: The Origins of Electricity Liberalisation in Europe is to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2022.
EV Decarbonization Strategy weighs life-cycle emissions and climate targets, highlighting mode shift to public transit, cycling, and walking, grid decarbonization, renewable energy, and charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gases while reducing private car dependence.
Key Points
A plan to cut transport emissions by pairing EV adoption with mode shift, clean power, and less private car use.
✅ Prioritize mode shift: transit, cycling, and walking.
✅ Electrify remaining vehicles with clean, renewable power.
✅ Expand charging, improve batteries, and manage critical minerals.
California recently announced that it plans to ban the sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a move similar to a 2035 electric vehicle mandate seen elsewhere, Ontario has invested $500 million in the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and Tesla is quickly becoming the world's highest-valued car company.
It almost seems like owning an electric vehicle is a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it isn't, as a U of T study explains today. What we should also be focused on is whether anyone should use a private vehicle at all.
As a researcher in sustainable mobility, I know this answer is unsatisfying. But this is where my latest research has led.
Battery EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3 - the best selling EV in Canada in 2020 - have no tailpipe emissions. But they do have higher production and manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, and often run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels.
Almost 18 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada came from fossil fuels in 2019, and even as Canada's EV goals grow more ambitious today, the grid mix varies from zero in Quebec to 90 per cent in Alberta.
Researchers like me compare the greenhouse gas emissions of an alternative vehicle, such as an EV, with those of a conventional vehicle over a vehicle lifetime, an exercise known as a life-cycle assessment. For example, a Tesla Model 3 compared with a Toyota Corolla can provide up to 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled in Quebec, but no reductions in Alberta.
Hundreds of millions of new cars
To avoid extreme and irreversible impacts on ecosystems, communities and the overall global economy, we must keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C - and ideally 1.5 C - above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.
We can translate these climate change targets into actionable plans. First, we estimate greenhouse gas emissions budgets using energy and climate models for each sector of the economy and for each country. Then we simulate future emissions, taking alternative technologies into account, as well as future potential economic and societal developments.
I looked at the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, which adds up to about 260 million vehicles, while noting the potential for Canada-U.S. collaboration in this transition, to answer a simple question: Could the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector be brought in line with climate targets by replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs?
The results were shocking. Assuming no changes to travel behaviours and a decarbonization of 80 per cent of electricity, meeting a 2 C target could require up to 300 million EVs, or 90 per cent of the projected U.S. fleet, by 2050. That would require all new purchased vehicles to be electric from 2035 onwards.
To put that into perspective, there are currently 880,000 EVs in the U.S., or 0.3 per cent of the fleet. Even the most optimistic projections, despite hype about an electric-car revolution gaining steam, from the International Energy Agency suggest that the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent electrified by 2050.
Massive and rapid electrification
Still, 90 per cent is theoretically possible, isn't it? Probably, but is it desirable?
In order to hit that target, we'd need to very rapidly overcome all the challenges associated with EV adoption, such as range anxiety, the higher purchase cost and availability of charging infrastructure.
A rapid pace of electrification would severely challenge the electricity infrastructure and the supply chain of many critical materials for the batteries, such as lithium, manganese and cobalt. It would require vast capacity of renewable energy sources and transmission lines, widespread charging infrastructure, a co-ordination between two historically distinct sectors (electricity and transportation systems) and rapid innovations in electric battery technologies. I am not saying it's impossible, but I believe it's unlikely.
Read more: There aren't enough batteries to electrify all cars - focus on trucks and buses instead
So what? Shall we give up, accept our collective fate and stop our efforts at electrification?
On the contrary, I think we should re-examine our priorities and dare to ask an even more critical question: Do we need that many vehicles on the road?
Buses, trains and bikes
Simply put, there are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger transport: avoid the need to travel, shift the transportation modes or improve the technologies. EVs only tackle one side of the problem, the technological one.
And while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, including leading electric bus fleets in North America, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.
If we truly want to solve our climate problems, we need to deploy EVs along with other measures, such as public transit and active mobility. This fact is critical, especially given the recent decreases in public transit ridership in the U.S., mostly due to increasing vehicle ownership, low gasoline prices and the advent of ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft)
Governments need to massively invest in public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure to make them larger, safer and more reliable, rather than expanding EV subsidies alone. And we need to reassess our transportation needs and priorities.
The road to decarbonization is long and winding. But if we are willing to get out of our cars and take a shortcut through the forest, we might get there a lot faster.
Author: Alexandre Milovanoff - Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto
