EU share of electric cars grew during virus lockdown months

Nova Scotia EV charging infrastructure remains limited, with only 14 fast chargers across the province. As electric vehicle adoption grows, urgent upgrades are needed to support long-distance travel and public charging convenience.

Nova Scotia EV charging infrastructure

Nova Scotia EV charging infrastructure refers to the province’s public and private network of stations that power electric vehicles (EVs).

✅ Limited availability of fast-charging stations for long-distance travel

✅ Growing demand as EV adoption increases province-wide

✅ Key factor in reducing range anxiety and promoting clean transportation

Nova Scotia’s EV charging network is struggling to keep pace with a growing fleet of electric vehicles. As of today, only 14 public DC fast chargers are operational across the province, a significant shortfall for drivers navigating long distances. This creates not only logistical hurdles but also growing consumer hesitation — particularly as EV sales continue to surge across Canada.

In response, the Canadian government has announced a $1.1 million (US$0.88 million) investment into a new smart-charging pilot program. Led by Nova Scotia Power, this initiative will explore how electric vehicles can better integrate with the local grid using a centralized, utility-managed control system. Up to 200 participants are expected to join the program, which aims to test both smart charging and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies.

These systems allow EVs to act as distributed energy storage, helping to manage electricity demand and improve renewable energy integration — a strategy already being tested in other jurisdictions. For example, Ontario’s charging network expansion has provided a model for scaling fast-charging accessibility. Similarly, British Columbia has recently accelerated its rollout of faster charging stations to support mass EV adoption.

The Nova Scotia pilot will assess local EV charging behaviors, including drivers’ willingness to participate in V2G services based on incentives, driving patterns, and access to clean power. “We know customers want clean, affordable, reliable energy for their homes and businesses,” says Dave Landrigan, VP Commercial at Nova Scotia Power. “Through our electric vehicle smart charging pilot, we will test these technologies to learn how they can benefit all customers, creating clean, smarter options without changing a person’s driving habits.”

The funding comes through Natural Resources Canada’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Demonstration program, which supports the development of cutting-edge charging and hydrogen refueling solutions across the country. To date, the federal government has invested over $600 million to support EV affordability and infrastructure deployment, with a particular focus on a coast-to-coast fast-charging network.

At the same time, other provinces are stepping up their leadership roles. In Québec, Hydro-Québec is expanding its EV ecosystem through a strategic partnership with Propulsion Québec, a key industry cluster for sustainable mobility. Their focus includes reliable public charging, clean grid integration, and stakeholder collaboration — all essential factors for scalable transportation electrification.

“In Québec, we are fortunate to be able to make transportation electrification possible by easily replacing gas imported from outside with our clean energy,” said France Lampron, Director – Transportation Electrification at Hydro-Québec. “To do this, we need to develop synergies between various stakeholders in the sustainable mobility sector.”

While Nova Scotia’s current fast-charging availability is limited, the province now has an opportunity to follow a similar trajectory. With funding in place, stakeholder alignment, and public interest growing, the expansion of Nova Scotia EV charging infrastructure could soon match the pace of rising EV demand. As governments and utilities nationwide focus on electrification, Nova Scotia’s pilot may lay the groundwork for a more connected, cleaner transportation future.

Related News

• EV sales continue to surge across Canada

• Ontario’s EV station rollout addresses fast‑charging gaps

• British Columbia rolls out faster charging infrastructure

• Canada’s EV charging networks needed to support coast‑to‑coast adoption

• Electricity Forum News

Building Energy Iowa Wind Farm delivers 30 MW of renewable energy near Des Moines, generating 110 GWh annually with wind turbines, a long-term PPA, CO2 reduction, and community benefits like jobs and clean power.

Key Points

Building Energy Iowa Wind Farm is a 30 MW project generating 110 GWh a year, cutting CO2 and supporting local jobs.

✅ 30 MW capacity, 10 onshore turbines (3 MW each)

✅ ~110 GWh per year; power for 11,000 households

✅ Long-term PPA; jobs and emissions reductions in Iowa

With 110 GWh generated per year, the plant will be beneficial to Iowa's environment, reflecting broader Iowa wind power investment trends, contributing to the reduction of 100,000 tons of CO2 emissions, as well as providing economic benefits to host local communities.

Building Energy SpA, multinational company operating as a global integrated IPP in the Renewable Energy Industry, amid milestones such as Enel's 450 MW U.S. wind project, through its subsidiary Building Energy Wind Iowa LLC, announces the inauguration of its first wind farm in Iowa, which adds up to 30 MW of wind distribution generation capacity. The project, located north of Des Moines, in Story, Boone, Hardin and Poweshiek counties, will generate approximately 110 GWh per year. The beginning of operations has been celebrated on the occasion of the Wind of Life event in Ames, Iowa, in the presence of Andrea Braccialarghe, MD America of Building Energy, Alessandro Bragantini, Chief Operating Officer of Building Energy and Giuseppe Finocchiaro, Italian Consul General.

The overall investment in the construction of the Iowa distribution generation wind farms amounted to $58 million and it sells its energy and related renewable credits under a bundled, long-term power purchase agreement with a local utility, reflecting broader utility investment trends such as WEC Energy's Illinois wind stake in the region.

The wind facility, developed, financed, owned and operated by Building Energy, consists of ten 3.0 MW geared onshore wind turbines, each with a rotor diameter of 125 meters mounted on an 87.5 meter steel tower. The energy generated will satisfy the energy needs of 11,000 U.S. households every year, similar in community impact to North Carolina's first wind farm, while avoiding the emission of about 70,000 tons of CO2 emissions every year, according to US Environmental Protection Agency methodology, which is equivalent to taking 15,000 cars off the road each year.

Besides the environmental benefits, the wind farm also has advantages for the local community, providing it with clean energy and creating jobs for local Iowans. The project involved more than a hundred of local skilled workers during the construction phase. Some of those jobs will be also permanent as necessary for the operation and maintenance activities as well as for additional services such as delivery, transportation, spare parts management, landscape mitigation, and further environmental monitoring studies.

The Company is present in many US states since 2013 with more than 500 MW of projects under development, spread across different renewable energy technologies, and aligning with federal initiatives like DOE wind energy awards that support innovation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

NC WARN Solar Case tests third-party solar rights as North Carolina Supreme Court reviews Utilities Commission fines over a Greensboro church's rooftop power deal, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly, onsite electricity sales, and potential rate impacts.

Key Points

A North Carolina Supreme Court test of third-party solar could weaken Duke Energy's monopoly and change utility rules.

✅ NC Supreme Court weighs Utilities Commission penalty on NC WARN

✅ Case could permit onsite third-party solar sales statewide

✅ Outcome may pressure Duke Energy's monopoly and rates

North Carolina's highest court is taking up a case that could force new competition on the state's electricity monopolies.

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider the Utilities Commission's decision to fine clean-energy advocacy group NC WARN for putting solar panels on a Greensboro church's rooftop and then charging it below-market rates for power.

The commission told NC WARN that it was producing electricity illegally and fined the group $60,000. The group said it was acting privately and appealed to the high court.

If the group prevails, it could put new pressure on Duke Energy's monopoly, which has seen an oversubscribed solar solicitation in recent procurements. State regulators say a ruling for NC WARN would allow companies to install solar equipment and sell power on site, shaving away customers and forcing Duke Energy to raise rates on everyone else.

#google#

That's because if NC WARN's deal with Faith Community Church is allowed, the precedent could open the door for others to lure away from Duke Energy, as debates over how solar owners are paid continue, "the customers with the highest profit potential, such as commercial and industrial customers with large energy needs and ample rooftop space," attorney Robert Josey Jr. wrote in a court filing.

Losing those power sales would force the country's No. 2 electricity company to make it up by charging remaining customers more to cover the cost of all of its power plants, transmission lines and repair crews, a dynamic echoed in New England's grid upgrade debates as solar grows, wrote Josey, an attorney for the Public Staff, the state's official utilities consumer advocate.

The dispute is whether NC WARN is producing electricity "for the public," which would mean it's intruding on the territory of the publicly regulated monopoly utility, or whether the move was allowed because it was a private power deal with the church alone.

NC WARN installed the church's power panels in 2015 as part of what it described as a test case, amid wider debates like Nova Scotia's delayed solar charge for customers, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly position to generate and sell electricity.

North Carolina was one of nine states that as of last year explicitly disallowed residential customers from buying electricity generated by solar panels on their roof from a third party that owns the system, even as Maryland opens solar subscriptions more broadly, according to the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. State law allows purchased or leased solar panels, but not payments simply for the power they generate.

NC WARN's goals included "reducing the effects of Duke Energy's monopoly control that has such negative impacts on power bills, clean air and water, and climate change," the church's pastor, Rev. Nelson Johnson, said in a statement the same day the clean-energy group asked state regulators to clear the plan.

Instead, the North Carolina Utilities Commission ruled the arrangement violated the state's system of legal electricity monopolies and hit the group with nearly $60,000 in fines, which would be suspended if the church's payments were refunded with interest and the solar equipment donated. The group has set aside the money and will donate the gear if it loses the Supreme Court case, NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said.

NC WARN's three-year agreement saw the group mount a rooftop solar array for which the church would pay about half the average retail electricity price, state officials said. The agreement states plainly that it is not a contract for the sale or lease of the $20,000 solar system, the church never owns the panels, and the low electricity price means its payback for the equipment would take 60 years, Josey wrote.

"Clearly, the only thing of value (the church) is obtaining for its payments under this agreement is the electricity created," he wrote.

In court filings, the group's attorneys have stuck to the argument that NC WARN isn't selling to the public because the deal involved a single customer only.

The deal "is not open to any other member of the public ... A private, bargained-for contract under which only one party receives electricity is not a sale of electricity 'to or for the public,' " attorney Matthew Quinn wrote to the court.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Clean Coal Technologies Pristine Funding secures investment from a New York asset manager via Black Diamond, advancing commercialization, Tulsa testing, Wyoming relocation, PRB coal enhancement, and cleaner energy innovation to support global coal exports.

Key Points

Capital from a New York asset manager backs Pristine commercialization, testing, and Wyoming relocation to boost PRB coal.

✅ Investment via Black Diamond funds Tulsa test operations.

✅ Permanent relocation planned near a Wyoming mine site.

✅ First Pristine M module to enhance PRB coal quality.

Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., an emerging cleaner-energy company utilizing patented and proven technology to convert untreated coal into a cleaner burning and more efficient fuel, announced today that the company has secured funding for their Pristine technology through commercialization, a move reminiscent of Bruce C project funding activity, from a major New York-based Asset Management company. This investment will be made through Black Diamond with all funds earmarked for test procedures at the plant near Tulsa, OK, at a time when rare new coal plants are appearing, and the plant's move to a permanent location in Wyoming. The first tranche is being paid immediately.

"Securing this investment will confidently carry us through to the construction of our first commercial module enabling management to focus on the additional tests that have been requested from multiple parties, even as US coal demand faces headwinds across the market," stated CEO of Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., Robin Eves. "At this time we have begun scheduling plant visits with both US government agency and coal industry officials along with key international energy consortiums that are monitoring transitions such as Alberta's coal phaseout policies."

"We're now able to finalize our negotiations in Wyoming where the permitting process has begun and where we will permanently relocate the test facility later this year following completion of the aforementioned tests," added CCTI COO/CFO, Aiden Neary. "This event also paves the way forward to commence the process of constructing the first commercial Pristine M facility. That plant is planned to be in Wyoming near an operating mine where our process can be used to enhance the quality of PRB coal to make it more competitive globally, even as regions like western Europe see coal-to-renewables conversions at legacy plants, and help restore the US coal export market."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

USPS Electric Mail Trucks promise zero-emission delivery, lower lifecycle and maintenance costs, and cleaner air. Congressional funding in Build Back Better would modernize the EV fleet and expand charging infrastructure, improving public health nationwide.

Key Points

USPS Electric Mail Trucks are zero-emission delivery vehicles that cut costs, reduce pollution, and improve health.

✅ Lower lifetime fuel and maintenance costs vs gas trucks

✅ Cuts greenhouse gas and NOx emissions in communities

✅ Expands charging infrastructure via federal investments

The U.S. Postal Service faces serious challenges, with billions of dollars in annual losses and total mail volume continuing to decline. Meanwhile, Congress is constantly hamstringing the agency.

But now lawmakers have an opportunity to invest in the Postal Service in a way that would pay dividends for years to come: By electrifying the postal fleet.

Tucked inside the massive social spending and climate package lumbering through the Senate is money for new, cleaner postal delivery trucks. There’s a lot to like about electric postal trucks. They’d significantly improve Americans’ health while also slowing climate change. And it just makes sense for taxpayers over the long term; the Postal Service’s private sector competitors have already made similar investments, as EV adoption reaches an EV inflection point in the market. As Democrats weigh potential areas to cut in President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, this is one provision that should escape the knife.

To call the U.S. Postal Service’s current vehicles “clunkers” would be an understatement. These often decades-old trucks are famous for having no airbags, no air conditioning and a nasty habit of catching fire. So the Postal Service’s recent decision to buy 165,000 replacement trucks is basically a no-brainer. But the main question is whether they will run on electricity or gasoline.

Electric vehicles are newer to the market and still carry a higher sticker price, as seen with electric bus adoption in many cities. But that higher price buys concrete benefits, like lower lifetime fuel and maintenance costs and huge reductions in pollution. Government demand for electric trucks will also push private markets to create better, cheaper vehicles, directly benefiting consumers. So while buying electric postal trucks may be somewhat more costly at first, over the long term, failing to do so could be far costlier.

At some level, this is a straightforward business decision that the Postal Service’s competitors have already made. For instance, Amazon has already deployed some of the 100,000 electric vans it recently ordered, and FedEx has promised a fully electric ground fleet by 2040, while nonprofit investment in electric trucks is accelerating electrification at major ports. In a couple of decades, the Postal Service could be the only carrier still driving dirty gas guzzlers, buying expensive fuel and paying the higher maintenance costs that combustion engines routinely require. Consumers could flock to greener competitors.

Beyond these business advantages, zero-emission vehicles carry other big benefits for the public. The Postal Service recently calculated some of these benefits by estimating the climate harms that going all-electric would avoid, benefits that persist even where electricity generation still includes fossil-generated electricity in nearby grids. Its findings were telling: A fully electric fleet would prevent millions or tens of millions of dollars’ worth of climate-change-related harms to property and human health each year of the trucks’ lifetimes (and this is probably a considerable underestimate). The world leaders that recently gathered at the global climate summit in Glasgow encouraged exactly this type of transition toward low-carbon technologies.

A cleaner postal fleet would benefit Americans in many other important ways. In addition to warming the planet, tailpipe pollutants can have dire health consequences for the people who breathe in the fumes. Mail trucks traverse virtually every neighborhood in the country and often must idle in residential areas, so we all benefit when they stop emitting. And these localized harms are not distributed equally. Some parts of the country — too often, low-income communities of color — already have poor air quality. Removing pollution from dirty mail trucks will especially help these overburdened and underserved populations.

The government’s purchasing power also routinely inspires companies to devise better and cheaper ways to do business. Investments in aerospace technologies, for instance, have spilled over into consumer innovations, giving us GPS technologies and faster, more fuel-efficient passenger jets. Bulk demand for cleaner trucks could inspire similar innovations as companies clamor for government contracts, meaning we all could get cheaper and better green products like car batteries, and the American EV boom could further accelerate those gains.

Additionally, because postal trucks are virtually everywhere in the country, if they go electric, that would mean more charging stations and grid updates everywhere too, and better utility planning for truck fleets to ensure reliable service. Suddenly, that long road trip that discourages many would-be electric car buyers may be simpler, which could boost electric vehicle adoption.

White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy talks with EVgo CEO Cathy Zoi before the start of an event near an EVgo electric car charging station.
ENERGY

The case for electrifying the postal fleet is strong from both a business and a social standpoint. Indeed, even Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who was appointed during the Trump administration, supports it. But getting there is not so simple. Most private businesses could just borrow the money they need for this investment and pay it back with the long-term savings they would enjoy. But not the Postal Service. Thanks to its byzantine funding structure, it cannot afford electric trucks’ upfront costs unless Congress either provides the money or lets it borrow more. This is the primary reason it has not committed to making more than 10 percent of its fleet electric.

And that returns us to the Build Back Better legislation. The version passed by the House sets aside $7 billion to help the Postal Service buy electric mail trucks — enough to electrify the vast majority of its fleet by the end of the decade.

Biden has made expanding the use of electric vehicles a top priority, setting an ambitious goal of 100 percent zero-emission federal vehicle acquisitions by 2035, and new EPA emission limits aim to accelerate EV adoption. But Sen. Joe Manchin has expressed resistance to some of the climate-related subsidies in the legislation and is also eager to keep costs down. This provision, however, is worthy of the West Virginia Democrat’s support.

Most Americans would see — and benefit from — these trucks on a daily basis. And for an operation that got its start under Benjamin Franklin, it’s a crucial way to keep the Postal Service relevant.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EV Charging Coal and Oil Claim: Fact-check of kWh, CO2 emissions, and electricity grid mix shows 70 lb coal or ~8 gallons oil per 66 kWh, with renewables and natural gas reducing lifecycle emissions.

Key Points

A viral claim on EV charging overstates oil use; accurate figures depend on grid mix: ~70 lb coal or ~8 gallons oil.

✅ About 70 lb coal or ~8 gal oil per 66 kWh, incl. conversion losses

✅ EVs average ~100 g CO2 per mile vs ~280 g for 30 mpg cars

✅ Grid mix includes renewables, nuclear, natural gas; oil use is low

The claim: Average electric car requires equivalent of 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil for a single charge

The Biden administration has pledged to work towards decarbonizing the U.S. electricity grid by 2035. And the recently passed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill provides funding for more electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, including EV charging networks across the country under current plans.

However, a claim that electric cars require an inordinate amount of oil or coal energy to charge has appeared on social media, even as U.S. plug-ins traveled 19 billion miles on electricity in 2021.

“An average electric car takes 66 KWH To charge. It takes 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil to make 66 KWH,” read a Dec 1 Facebook post that was shared nearly 500 times in a week. “Makes absolutely no sense.” 

The post included a stock image of an electric car charging, though actual charging costs depend on local rates and vehicle efficiency.

This claim is in the ballpark for the coal comparison, but the math on the oil usage is wildly inaccurate.

It would take roughly 70 pounds of coal to produce the energy required to charge a 66 kWh electric car battery, said Ian Miller, a research associate at the MIT Energy Initiative. That's about 15 pounds less than is claimed in the post.

The oil number is much farther off.

While the post claims that it takes six barrels of oil to charge a 66 kWh battery, Miller said the amount is closer to 8 gallons  — the equivalent of 20% of one barrel of oil.

He said both of his estimates account for energy lost when fossil fuels are converted into electricity. 

"I think the most important question is, 'How do EVs and gas cars compare on emissions per distance?'," said Miller. "In the US, using average electricity, EVs produce roughly 100 grams of CO2 per mile."

He said this is more than 60% less than a typical gasoline-powered car that gets 30 mpg, aligning with analyses that EVs are greener in all 50 states today according to recent studies. Such a vehicle produces roughly 280 grams of CO2 per mile.

Lifecycle analyses also show that the CO2 from making an EV battery is not equivalent to driving a gasoline car for years, which often counters common misconceptions.

"If you switch to an electric vehicle, even if you're using fossil fuels (to charge), it's just simply not true that you'll be using more fossil fuel," said Jessika Trancik, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the environmental impact of energy systems.  

However, she emphasized electric cars in the U.S. are not typically charged using only energy from coal or oil, and that electricity grids can handle EVs with proper management.

The U.S. electricity grid relies on a diversity of energy sources, of which oil and coal together make up about 20 percent, according to a DOE spokesperson. This amount is likely to continue to drop as renewable energy proliferates in the U.S., even as some warn that state power grids will be challenged by rapid EV adoption. 

"Switching to an electric vehicle means that you can use other sources, including less carbon-intensive natural gas, and even less carbon-intensive electricity sources like nuclear, solar and wind energy, which also carry with them health benefits in the form of reduced air pollutant emissions," said Trancik. 

Our rating: Partly false
Based on our research, we rate PARTLY FALSE the claim that the average electric car requires the equivalent of 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil for a single charge. The claim is in the ballpark on coal consumption, as an MIT researcher estimates that around 70 pounds. But the oil usage is only about 8 gallons, which is 20% of one barrel. And the actual sources of energy for an electric car vary depending on the energy mix in the local electric grid. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News