Cost is the main reason stopping Canadians from buying an electric car: Survey

GM Canada-Unifor EV Deal outlines a $1B plan to transform the CAMI plant in Ingersoll, Ontario, building BrightDrop EV600 delivery vans, boosting EV manufacturing, creating jobs, and securing future production with government-backed investment.

Key Points

A tentative $1B deal to retool CAMI for BrightDrop EV600 production, creating jobs and securing Canada's EV manufacturing.

✅ $1B to transform CAMI, Ingersoll, for BrightDrop EV600 vans

✅ Ratification vote set; Unifor Local 88 to review details

✅ Supports EV manufacturing, delivery logistics, and new jobs

GM Canada says it has reached a tentative deal with Unifor that if ratified will see it invest $1 billion to transform its CAMI plant in Ingersoll, Ont., to make commercial electric vehicles, aligning with GM's EV hiring plans across North America.

Unifor National President Jerry Dias says along with the significant investment the agreement will mean new products, new jobs amid Ontario's EV jobs boom and job security for workers.

Dias says in a statement that more details of the tentative deal will be presented to Unifor Local 88 members at an online ratification meeting scheduled for Sunday.

He says the results of the ratification vote are scheduled to be released on Monday.

Details of the agreement were not released Friday night.

A GM spokeswoman says in a statement that the plan is to build BrightDrop EV 600s -- an all-new GM business announced this week at the Consumer Electronics Show and part of EV assembly deals that put Canada in the race -- that will offer a cleaner way for delivery and logistics companies to move goods more efficiently.

Unifor said the contract, if ratified, will bring total investment negotiated by the union to nearly $6 billion after new agreements were ratified with General Motors, Ford, including Ford EV production plans, and Fiat Chrysler in 2020 that included support from the federal and Ontario governments, and parallel investments such as a Niagara Region battery plant bolstering the supply chain.

It said the Ford deal reached in September included $1.95 billion to bring battery electric vehicle production to Oakville via the Oakville EV deal and a new engine derivative to Windsor and the Fiat Chrysler agreement included more than $1.5 billion to build plug-in hybrid vehicles and battery electric vehicles.

Unifor said in November, General Motors agreed to a $1.3 billion dollar investment to bring 1,700 jobs to Oshawa, as Honda's Ontario battery investment signals wider sector momentum, plus more than $109 million to in-source new transmission work for the Corvette and support continued V8 engine production in St. Catharines.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric Car Motors convert electricity to torque via rotor-stator magnetic fields, using AC/DC inverters, permanent magnets or induction designs; they power EV powertrains efficiently and enable regenerative braking for energy recovery and control.

Key Points

Electric car motors turn electrical energy into wheel torque using rotor-stator fields, inverters, and AC or DC control.

✅ AC induction, PMSM, BLDC, and reluctance architectures explained

✅ Inverters manage AC/DC, voltage, and motor speed via frequency

✅ Regenerative braking recovers energy and reduces wear

When was the last time you stopped to think about how electric cars actually work, especially if you're wondering whether to buy an electric car today? We superfans of the car biz have mostly developed a reasonable understanding of how combustion powertrains work. Most of us can visualize fuel and air entering a combustion chamber, exploding, pushing a piston down, and rotating a crankshaft that ultimately turns the wheels. We generally understand the differences between inline, flat, vee-shaped, and maybe even Wankel rotary combustion engines.

Mechanical engineering concepts such as these are comparatively easy to comprehend. But it's probably a fair bet to wager that only a minority of folks reading this can explain on a bar napkin exactly how invisible electrons turn a car's wheels or how a permanent-magnet motor differs from an AC induction one. Electrical engineering can seem like black magic and witchcraft to car nuts, so it's time to demystify this bold new world of electromobility, with the age of electric cars arriving ahead of schedule.

How Electric Cars Work: Motors
It has to do with magnetism and the natural interplay between electric fields and magnetic fields. When an electrical circuit closes allowing electrons to move along a wire, those moving electrons generate an electromagnetic field complete with a north and a south pole. When this happens in the presence of another magnetic field—either from a different batch of speeding electrons or from Wile E. Coyote's giant ACME horseshoe magnet, those opposite poles attract, and like poles repel each other.

Electric motors work by mounting one set of magnets or electromagnets to a shaft and another set to a housing surrounding that shaft. By periodically reversing the polarity (swapping the north and south poles) of one set of electromagnets, the motor leverages these attracting and repelling forces to rotate the shaft, thereby converting electricity into torque and ultimately turning the wheels, in a sector where the electric motor market is growing rapidly worldwide. Conversely—as in the case of regenerative braking—these magnetic/electromagnetic forces can transform motion back into electricity.

How Electric Cars Work: AC Or DC?
The electricity supplied to your home arrives as alternating current (AC), and bidirectional charging means EVs can power homes for days as needed, so-called because the north/south or plus/minus polarity of the power changes (alternates) 60 times per second. (That is, in the United States and other countries operating at 110 volts; countries with a 220-volt standard typically use 50-Hz AC.) Direct current (DC) is what goes into and comes out of the + and - poles of every battery. As noted above, motors require alternating current to spin. Without it, the electromagnetic force would simply lock their north and south poles together. It's the cycle of continually switching north and south that keeps a motor spinning.

Today's electric cars are designed to manage both AC and DC energy on board. The battery stores and dispenses DC current, but again, the motor needs AC. When recharging the battery, and with increasing grid coordination enabling flexibility, the energy comes into the onboard charger as AC current during Level 1 and Level 2 charging and as DC high-voltage current on Level 3 "fast chargers." Sophisticated power electronics (which we will not attempt to explain here) handle the multiple onboard AC/DC conversions while stepping the voltage up and down from 100 to 800 volts of charging power to battery/motor system voltages of 350-800 volts to the many vehicle lighting, infotainment, and chassis functions that require 12-48-volt DC electricity.

How Electric Cars Work: What Types Of Motors?
DC Motor (Brushed): Yes, we just said AC makes the motor go around, and these old-style motors that powered early EVs of the 1900s are no different. DC current from the battery is delivered to the rotor windings via spring-loaded "brushes" of carbon or lead that energize spinning contacts connected to wire windings. Every few degrees of rotation, the brushes energize a new set of contacts; this continually reverses the polarity of the electromagnet on the rotor as the motor shaft turns. (This ring of contacts is known as the commutator).

The housing surrounding the rotor's electromagnetic windings typically features permanent magnets. (A "series DC" or so-called "universal motor" may use an electromagnetic stator.) Advantages are low initial cost, high reliability, and ease of motor control. Varying the voltage regulates the motor's speed, while changing the current controls its torque. Disadvantages include a lower lifespan and the cost of maintaining the brushes and contacts. This motor is seldom used in transportation today, save for some Indian railway locomotives.

Brushless DC Motor (BLDC): The brushes and their maintenance are eliminated by moving the permanent magnets to the rotor, placing the electromagnets on the stator (housing), and using an external motor controller to alternately switch the various field windings from plus to minus, thereby generating the rotating magnetic field.

Advantages are a long lifespan, low maintenance, and high efficiency. Disadvantages are higher initial cost and more complicated motor speed controllers that typically require three Hall-effect sensors to get the stator-winding current phased correctly. That switching of the stator windings can result in "torque ripple"—periodic increases and decreases in the delivered torque. This type of motor is popular for smaller vehicles like electric bikes and scooters, and it's used in some ancillary automotive applications like electric power steering assist.

Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM): Physically, the BLDC and PMSM motors look nearly identical. Both feature permanent magnets on the rotor and field windings in the stator. The key difference is that instead of using DC current and switching various windings on and off periodically to spin the permanent magnets, the PMSM functions on continuous sinusoidal AC current. This means it suffers no torque ripple and needs only one Hall-effect sensor to determine rotor speed and position, so it's more efficient and quieter.

The word "synchronous" indicates the rotor spins at the same speed as the magnetic field in the windings. Its big advantages are its power density and strong starting torque. A main disadvantage of any motor with spinning permanent magnets is that it creates "back electromotive force" (EMF) when not powered at speed, which causes drag and heat that can demagnetize the motor. This motor type also sees some duty in power steering and brake systems, but it has become the motor design of choice in most of today's battery electric and hybrid vehicles.

Note that most permanent-magnet motors of all kinds orient their north-south axis perpendicular to the output shaft. This generates "radial (magnetic) flux." A new class of "axial flux" motors orients the magnets' N-S axes parallel to the shaft, usually on pairs of discs sandwiching stationary stator windings in between. The compact, high-torque axial flux orientation of these so-called "pancake motors" can be applied to either BLDC or PMSM type motors.

AC Induction: For this motor, we toss out the permanent magnets on the rotor (and their increasingly scarce rare earth materials) and keep the AC current flowing through stator windings as in the PMSM motor above.

Standing in for the magnets is a concept Nikola Tesla patented in 1888: As AC current flows through various windings in the stator, the windings generate a rotating field of magnetic flux. As these magnetic lines pass through perpendicular windings on a rotor, they induce an electric current. This then generates another magnetic force that induces the rotor to turn. Because this force is only induced when the magnetic field lines cross the rotor windings, the rotor will experience no torque or force if it rotates at the same (synchronous) speed as the rotating magnetic field.

This means AC induction motors are inherently asynchronous. Rotor speed is controlled by varying the alternating current's frequency. At light loads, the inverter controlling the motor can reduce voltage to reduce magnetic losses and improve efficiency. Depowering an induction motor during cruising when it isn't needed eliminates the drag created by a permanent-magnet motor, while dual-motor EVs using PMSM motors on both axles must always power all motors. Peak efficiency may be slightly greater for BLDC or PMSM designs, but AC induction motors often achieve higher average efficiency. Another small trade-off is slightly lower starting torque than PMSM. The GM EV1 of the mid-1990s and most Teslas have employed AC Induction motors, despite skepticism about an EV revolution in some quarters.

Reluctance Motor: Think of "reluctance" as magnetic resistance: the degree to which an object opposes magnetic flux. A reluctance motor's stator features multiple electromagnet poles—concentrated windings that form highly localized north or south poles. In a switched reluctance motor (SRM), the rotor is made of soft magnetic material such as laminated silicon steel, with multiple projections designed to interact with the stator's poles. The various electromagnet poles are turned on and off in much the same way the field windings in a BLDC motor are. Using an unequal number of stator and rotor poles ensures some poles are aligned (for minimum reluctance), while others are directly in between opposite poles (maximum reluctance). Switching the stator polarity then pulls the rotor around at an asynchronous speed.

A synchronous reluctance motor (SynRM) doesn't rely on this imbalance in the rotor and stator poles. Rather, SynRM motors feature a more distributed winding fed with a sinusoidal AC current as in a PMSM design, with speed regulated by a variable-frequency drive, and an elaborately shaped rotor with voids shaped like magnetic flux lines to optimize reluctance.

The latest trend is to place small permanent magnets (often simpler ferrite ones) in some of these voids to take advantage of both magnetic and reluctance torque while minimizing cost and the back EMF (or counter-electromotive force) high-speed inefficiencies that permanent-magnet motors suffer.

Advantages include lower cost, simplicity, and high efficiency. Disadvantages can include noise and torque ripple (especially for switched reluctance motors). Toyota introduced an internal permanent-magnet synchronous reluctance motor (IPM SynRM) on the Prius, and Tesla now pairs one such motor with an AC induction motor on its Dual Motor models. Tesla also uses IPM SynRM as the single motor for its rear-drive models.

Electric motors may never sing like a small-block or a flat-plane crank Ferrari. But maybe, a decade or so from now, we'll regard the Tesla Plaid powertrain as fondly as we do those engines, even as industry leaders note that mainstream adoption faces hurdles, and every car lover will be able to describe in intimate detail what kind of motors it uses.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Biden Impact on Canadian Energy Exports highlights shifts in trade policy, tariffs, carbon pricing, and Keystone XL, with implications for aluminum, softwood lumber, electricity trade, fracking limits, and small modular nuclear reactors.

Key Points

How Biden-era trade, climate rules, and tariffs may reshape Canadian energy and exports.

✅ Reduced tariff volatility and friendlier trade policy toward allies

✅ Climate alignment: carbon pricing, clean power, cross-border electricity

✅ Potential gains for oil, gas, aluminum, and softwood lumber exporters

There is little doubt among industry associations, the Conference Board of Canada and C.D. Howe Institute that a Joe Biden White House will be better for Canadian resource and energy exporters – even Alberta’s beleaguered oil industry, despite Biden’s promise to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

The consensus among industry observers in the lead-up to the November 3 U.S. presidential election was that a re-elected Donald Trump would become even more pugnacious on trade and protectionism, putting electricity exports at risk for Canadian utilities, which would be bad for Canadian exporters. The Justin Trudeau government would likely come under increased pressure to lower Canadian business taxes to compete with Trump’s low-tax climate.

“A Joe Biden victory would likely lead to higher taxes for both corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay down the gigantic fiscal deficit that is currently running at plus-US$5 trillion,” the conference board concluded in a recent analysis.

On trade and tariffs, the conference board said: “Many but not all of these ongoing trade disputes would wither away under a Joe Biden administration. He would likely run a broad trade policy favouring strategic allies like Canada.

While Canadian industries like forestry and aluminum smelting benefited from strong demand and prices in the U.S. under Trump, the forced renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement failed end tariffs and duties on things like softwood lumber and aluminum ingots, even as Canadians backed tariffs on energy and minerals during the dispute.

The uncertainty over trade issues, and Trump’s tax cuts, which made Canada’s tax regime less competitive, have contributed to a period of low business investment in Canada during Trump's presidency.

“For Canada, we’ve seen a period, since this administration has been in power, where investment has eroded steadily,” conference board chief economist Pedro Antunes said. “We are not doing well at all, in terms of private capital investment in Canada.”

Alberta’s oil industry has been hit particularly hard, with a slew of divestments by big energy giants, and cancellations of major projects, like the $20 billion Frontier oilsands project, scrubbed by Teck Resources.

While domestic policies and global market forces are partly to blame for falling investments in Canada’s oil and gas sector, up until the pandemic hit, investment in oil and gas increased significantly in the U.S., while declining in Canada, during Trump’s first term.

Biden is also expected to level the playing field with respect to climate change policies. Canadian industries pay carbon taxes and face regulations that their counterparts in the U.S. don’t. That has disadvantaged energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like mines and pulp mills in Canada.

“With Biden in office, Canada will once again have a partner at the federal level in the states in the transition to a decarbonized economy,” said Josha MacNab, national policy director for the Pembina Institute.

Biden’s policies might also favour importing aluminum, cross-laminated timber, fuel cells and other lower-carbon products and commodities from Canada.

At least one observer believes that Canada’s oil and gas sector might benefit more from a Biden White House, despite Biden’s pledge to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

“I think Joe Biden could be very good for Alberta,” Christopher Sands, director of the Wilson International Center’s Canada Institute, said in a recent discussion hosted by the C.D. Howe Institute.

Sands added that the presidential permit Biden has promised to tear up on the Keystone XL pipeline project is a construction permit, not an operating permit.

“The segment of that pipeline that crosses the U.S.-Canada border, which is the only place that the presidential permit applies, has been built,” Sands said. “So I think that’s somewhat of an empty threat.”

He added that, if Biden bans fracking on federal lands, as he has promised, and implements other restrictions that make it more costly for American oil and gas producers, it might increase the demand for Canadian oil and gas in the U.S. The demand would be highest in the U.S. Midwest, which depends largely on Marcellus Shale production, notably in Pennsylvania, and Western Canada for its oil and gas.

One of the Canadian industries directly affected by the Trump administration was aluminum smelting, which is relevant for B.C. because Rio Tinto plc’s Kitimat smelter exports aluminum to the U.S.

Jean Simard, president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, said one of Trump’s legacies was the reactivation of a little-used mechanism – Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – to hit Canada and other countries, notably China, with import tariffs.

The 10 per cent tariffs on aluminum cost Canadian aluminum producers US$15 million in the month of August alone, Simard said.

The Trump administration eventually exempted Canadian aluminum exports from the tariffs, then reintroduced them, and then, one week before the election, exempted them again.

These on-again, off-again tariff threats create tremendous uncertainty, not just for Canadian producers, but also for U.S. buyers. That kind of uncertainty is likely to ease under a Biden presidency.

Simard said Biden’s track record suggests he is well-disposed towards Canada and less confrontational with allies and trade partners in general, and some in Washington have called for a stronger U.S.-Canada energy partnership as well.

Meanwhile, softwood lumber tariffs have been imposed by Democrats and Republicans alike. But there are compelling reasons for ending the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber war.

Home renovation and repair in the United States has done surprisingly well during the pandemic.

As a result of sawmill curtailments in the U.S. due to pandemic restrictions and high demand for lumber in the U.S. housing sector, North American lumbers prices broke records this summer, soaring as high as US$900 per thousand board feet.

“It shows that there’s very strong demand for our product,” said Susan Yurkovich, president of the Council of Forest Industries.

Ultimately, the duties Canadian lumber exporters pay are passed on to U.S. consumers.

Sands said Biden’s climate action pledges, including a clean electricity standard, could increase opportunities for trading electricity between Canada in the U.S., as the U.S. increasingly looks to Canada for green power, and could also be good for Canadian nuclear power technology.

Strong climate change policies necessarily result in an increased demand for low-carbon electricity, and advancing clean grids, which Canada has in abundance, thanks to both hydro and nuclear power.

“[Biden] does share the desire to act on climate change, but unlike some of his fellow party members who are more signed on to a Green New Deal, he’s open to pragmatic solutions that might get the job done quickly and efficiently,” Sands said.

“This is a huge opportunity for small, modular nuclear reactors, and Atomic Energy Canada has some great designs. There’s a real opportunity for a nuclear revival.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EPA Auto Emissions Proposal 2027-2032 sets strict tailpipe emissions limits, accelerating electric vehicle adoption, cutting greenhouse gases, advancing climate policy, and reducing oil dependence through battery-electric cars and trucks across U.S. markets.

Key Points

An EPA plan setting strict tailpipe limits to drive EV adoption, cut greenhouse gases, and reduce oil use in vehicles.

✅ Cuts GHGs 56% vs. 2026 standards; improves national air quality.

✅ Targets up to two-thirds EV sales by 2032 nationwide.

✅ Reduces oil imports by about 20 billion barrels; lowers costs.

The Biden administration is proposing strict new automobile pollution limits that would require up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2032, a nearly tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales.

The proposed regulation, announced Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would set tailpipe emissions limits for the 2027 through 2032 model years that are the strictest ever imposed — and call for far more new EV sales than the auto industry agreed to less than two years ago, a shift aligned with U.S. EV sales momentum in early 2024.

If finalized next year as expected, the plan would represent the strongest push yet toward a once almost unthinkable shift from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to battery-powered vehicles, as the market approaches an inflection point in adoption.

The Biden administration is proposing strict new automobile pollution limits that would require up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2032, a nearly tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales.

The proposed regulation, announced Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would set tailpipe emissions limits for the 2027 through 2032 model years that are the strictest ever imposed — and call for far more new EV sales than the auto industry agreed to less than two years ago, a direction mirrored by Canada's EV sales regulations now being finalized.

If finalized next year as expected, the plan would represent the strongest push yet toward a once almost unthinkable shift from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to battery-powered vehicles, with many analysts forecasting widespread adoption within a decade among buyers.

Reaching half was always a “stretch goal," given that EVs still trail gas cars in market share and contingent on manufacturing incentives and tax credits to make EVs more affordable, he wrote.

“The question isn’t can this be done, it’s how fast can it be done,” Bozzella wrote. “How fast will depend almost exclusively on having the right policies and market conditions in place.”

European car maker Stellantis said that, amid broader EV mandate debates across North America, officials were “surprised that none of the alternatives” proposed by EPA "align with the president’s previously announced target of 50% EVs by 2030.''

Q. How will the proposal benefit the environment?

A. The proposed standards for light-duty cars and trucks are projected to result in a 56% reduction in projected greenhouse gas emissions compared with existing standards for model year 2026, the EPA said. The proposals would improve air quality for communities across the nation, and, with actual benefits influenced by grid mix — for example, Canada's fossil electricity share affects lifecycle emissions — avoiding nearly 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2055, more than twice the total U.S. CO2 emissions last year, the EPA said.

The plan also would save thousands of dollars over the lives of the vehicles sold and reduce U.S. reliance on approximately 20 billion barrels of oil imports, the agency said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California 100% Clean Energy by 2030 proposes accelerating SB 100 with solar, wind, offshore wind, and battery storage to decarbonize the grid, enhance reliability, and reduce blackouts, leveraging transmission upgrades and long-duration storage solutions.

Key Points

Proposal to accelerate SB 100 to 2030, delivering a carbon-free grid via renewables, storage, and new transmission.

✅ Accelerates SB 100 to a 2030 carbon-free electricity target

✅ Scales solar, wind, offshore wind, and battery storage capacity

✅ Requires transmission build-out and demand response for reliability

Amid a spate of wildfires that have covered large portions of California with unhealthy air, an environmental group that frequently lobbies the Legislature in Sacramento is calling on the state to accelerate by 15 years California's commitment to derive 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources.

But skeptics point to last month's pair of rolling blackouts and say moving up the mandate would be too risky.

"Once again, California is experiencing some of the worst that climate change has to offer, whether it's horrendous air quality, whether it's wildfires, whether it's scorching heat," said Dan Jacobson, state director of Environment California. "This should not be the new normal and we shouldn't allow this to become normal."

Signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018, Senate Bill 100 commits California by 2045 to use only sources of energy that produce no greenhouse gas emissions to power the electric grid, a target that echoes Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan now under consideration.

Implemented through the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard, SB 100 mandates 60 percent of the state's power will come from renewable sources such as solar and wind within the next 10 years. By 2045, the remaining 40 percent can come from other zero-carbon sources, such as large hydroelectric dams, a strategy aligned with Canada's electricity decarbonization efforts toward climate pledges.

SB 100 also requires three state agencies _ the California Energy Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Air Resources Board _ to send a report to the Legislature reviewing various aspects of the legislation.

The topics include scenarios in which SB 100's requirements can be accelerated. Following an Energy Commission workshop earlier this month, Environment California sent a six-page note to all three agencies urging a 100 percent clean energy standard by 2030.

The group pointed to comments by Gov. Gavin Newsom after he toured the devastation in Butte County caused by the North Complex fire.

"Across the entire spectrum, our (state) goals are inadequate to the reality we are experiencing," Newsom said Sept. 11 at the Oroville State Recreation Area.

Newsom "wants to look at his climate policies and see what he can accelerate," Jacobson said. "And we want to encourage him to take a look at going to 100 percent by 2030."

Jacobson said Newsom cam change the policy by issuing an executive order but "it would probably take some legislative action" to codify it.

However, Assemblyman Jim Cooper, a Democrat from the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove, is not on board.

"I think someday we're going to be there but we can't move to all renewable sources right now," Cooper said. "It doesn't work. We've got all these burned-out areas that depend upon electricity. How is that working out? They don't have it."

In mid-August, California experienced statewide rolling blackouts for the first time since 2001.

The California Independent System Operator _ which manages the electric grid for about 80 percent of the state _ ordered utilities to ratchet back power, fearing the grid did not have enough supply to match a surge in demand as people cranked up their air conditioners during a stubborn heat wave that lingered over the West.

The outages affected about 400,000 California homes and businesses for more than an hour on Aug. 14 and 200,000 customers for about 20 minutes on Aug. 15.

The grid operator, known as the CAISO for short, avoided two additional days of blackouts in August and two more in September thanks to household utility customers and large energy users scaling back demand.

CAISO Chief Executive Officer Steve Berberich said the outages were not due to renewable energy sources in California's power mix. "This was a matter of running out of capacity to serve load" across all hours, Berberich told the Los Angeles Times.

California has plenty of renewable resources _ especially solar power _ during the day. The challenge comes when solar production rapidly declines as the sun goes down, especially between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. in what grid operators call the "net load peak."

The loss of those megawatts of generation has to be replaced by other sources. And in an electric grid, system operators have to balance supply and demand instantaneously, generating every kilowatt that is demanded by customers who expect their lighting/heating/air conditioning to come on the moment they flip a switch.

Two weeks after the rotating outages, the State Water Resources Control Board voted to extend the lives of four natural gas plants in the Los Angeles area. Natural gas accounts for the largest single source of California's power mix _ 34.23 percent. But natural gas is a fossil fuel, not a carbon-free resource.

Jacobson said moving the mandate to 2030 can be achieved by more rapid deployment of renewable sources across the state.

The Public Utilities Commission has already directed power companies to ramp up capacity for energy storage, such as lithium-ion batteries that can be used when solar production falls off.

Long-term storage is another option. That includes pumped hydro projects in which hydroelectric facilities pump water from one reservoir up to another and then release it. The ensuing rush of water generates electricity when the grid needs it.

Environment California also pointed to offshore wind projects along the coast of Central and Northern California that it estimates could generate as much as 3 gigawatts of power by 2030 and 10 gigawatts by 2040. Offshore wind supporters say its potential is much greater than land-based wind farms because ocean breezes are stronger and steadier.

Gary Ackerman, a utilities and energy consultant with more than four decades of experience in power issues affecting states in the West, said the 2045 mandate was "an unwise policy to begin with" and to accommodate a "swift transition (to 2030), you're going to put the entire grid and everybody in it at risk."

But Ackerman's larger concern is whether enough transmission lines can be constructed in California to bring the electricity where it needs to go.

"I believe Californians consider transmission lines in their backyard about the same way they think about low-income housing _ it's great to have, but not in my backyard," Ackerman said. "The state is not prepared to build the infrastructure that will allow this grandiose build-out."

Cooper said he worries about how much it will cost the average utility customer, especially low and middle-income households. The average retail price for electricity in California is 16.58 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 10.53 nationally, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

"What's sad is, we've had 110-degree days and there are people up here in the Central Valley that never turned their air conditioners on because they can't afford that bill," Cooper said.

Jacobson said the utilities commission can intervene if costs get too high. He also pointed to a recent study from the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley that predicted the U.S. can deliver 90 percent clean, carbon-free electric grid by 2035 that is reliable and at no extra cost in consumers' bills.

"Every time we wait and say, 'Oh, what about the cost? Is it going to be too expensive?' we're just making the cost unbearable for our kids and grandkids," Jacobson said. "They're the ones who are going to pay the billions of dollars for all the remediation that has to happen ... What's it going to cost if we do nothing, or don't go fast enough?"

The joint agency report on SB 100 from the Energy Commission, the Public Utilities Commission and the Air Resources Board is due at the beginning of next year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Electric Vehicle Charging Costs and Times explain kWh usage, electricity rates, Level 2 vs DC fast charging, per-mile expense, and tax credits, with examples by region and battery size to estimate home and public charging.

Key Points

They measure EV charging price and duration based on kWh rates, charger level, efficiency, and location.

✅ Costs vary by kWh price, region, and charger type.

✅ Efficiency (mi/kWh) sets per-mile cost and range.

✅ Tax credits and utility rates impact total ownership.

More and more car manufacturing companies dip their toes in the world of electric vehicles every year, making it a good time to buy an EV for many shoppers, and the U.S. government is also offering incentives to turn the tides on car purchasing. Electric vehicles bought between 2010 and 2022 may be eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500. 

And according to the Consumer Reports analysis on long-term ownership, the cost of charging an electric vehicle is almost always cheaper than fueling a gas-powered car – sometimes by hundreds of dollars.

But that depends on the type of car and where in the country you live, in a market many expect to be mainstream within a decade across the U.S. Here's everything you need to know.

How much does it cost to charge an electric car?
An electric vehicle’s fuel efficiency can be measured in kilowatt-hours per 100 miles, and common charging-efficiency myths have been fact-checked to correct math errors.

For example, if electricity costs 10.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, charging a 200-mile range 54-kWh battery would cost about $6. Charging a vehicle that consumes 27 kWh to travel 100 miles would cost three cents a mile. 

The national average cost of electricity is 10 cents per kWh and 11.7 cents per kWh for residential use. Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Vehicle Testing compares the energy cost per mile for electric-powered and gasoline-fueled vehicles.

For example, at 10 cents per kWh, an electric vehicle with an efficiency of 3 miles per kWh would cost about 3.3 cents per mile. The gasoline equivalent cost for this electricity cost would be just under $2.60 per gallon.

Prices vary by location as well. For example, Consumer Report found that West Coast electric vehicles tend to be less expensive to operate than gas-powered or hybrid cars, and are often better for the planet depending on local energy mix, but gas prices are often lower than electricity in New England.

Public charging networks in California cost about 30 cents per kWh for Level 2 and 40 cents per kWh for DCFC. Here’s an example of the cost breakdown using a Nissan LEAF with a 150-mile range and 40-kWh battery:

Level 2, empty to full charge: $12
DCFC, empty to full charge: $16

Many cars also offer complimentary charging for the first few years of ownership or provide credits to use for free charging. You can check the full estimated cost using the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Cost Calculator as the grid prepares for an American EV boom in the years ahead.

How long does it take to charge an electric car?
This depends on the type of charger you're using. Charging with a Level 1 charger takes much longer to reach full battery than a level 2 charger or a DCFC, or Direct Current Fast Charger. Here's how much time you can expect to spend charging your electric vehicle:

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News