Will Electric Vehicles Crash The Grid?

U.S. Renewable Energy Share 2022 leads electricity generation trends, as wind and solar outpace nuclear and coal, per EIA data, with hydropower gains and grid growth highlighting rapid, sustainable capacity expansion nationwide.

Key Points

Renewables supplied over 25% of U.S. electricity in 2022, as wind and solar outpaced nuclear with double-digit growth.

✅ Renewables provided 25.52% of U.S. power Jan-Apr 2022.

✅ Wind and solar beat nuclear by 17.96% in April.

✅ Solar up 28.93%, wind up 24.25%; hydropower up 9.99%.

During the first four months of 2022, electrical generation by renewable energy sources accounted for over 25% of the nation’s electricity, projected to soon be about one-fourth as growth continues. In April alone, renewables hit a record April share of 29.3% — an all-time high.

And for the first time ever, the combination of just wind power and solar produce more electricity in April than the nation’s nuclear power plants — 17.96% more.

This is according to a SUN DAY Campaign analysis of data in EIA’s Electric Power Monthly report. The report also reveals that during the first third of this year, solar (including residential) generation climbed by 28.93%, while wind increased by 24.25%. Combined, solar and wind grew by 25.46% and accounted for more than one-sixth (16.67%) of U.S. electrical generation (wind: 12.24%, solar: 4.43%).

Hydropower also increased by 9.99% during the first four months of 2022. However, wind alone provided 70.89% more electricity than did hydropower. Together with contributions from geothermal and biomass, the mix of renewable energy sources expanded by 18.49%, and building on its second-most U.S. source in 2020 status helped underscore momentum as it provided about 25.5% of U.S. electricity during the first four months of 2022.

For the first third of the year, renewables surpassed coal and nuclear power by 26.13% and 37.80% respectively. In fact, electrical generation by coal declined by 3.94% compared to the same period in 2021 while nuclear dropped by 1.80%.

“Notwithstanding headwinds such as the COVID pandemic, grid access problems, and disruptions in global supply chains, solar and wind remain on a roll,” noted the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director Ken Bossong. “Moreover, by surpassing nuclear power by ever greater margins, they illustrate the foolishness of trying to revive the soon-to-retire Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California and the just-retired Palisades reactor in Michigan rather than focusing on accelerating renewables’ growth.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Gas Car Ban 2035 signals a shift to electric vehicles, raising grid reliability concerns, charging demand, and renewable energy challenges across solar, wind, and storage, amid rolling blackouts and carbon-free power mandates.

Key Points

An order ending new gasoline car sales by 2035 in California, accelerating EV adoption and pressuring the power grid.

✅ 25% EV fleet could add 232.5 GWh/day charging demand by 2040

✅ Solar and wind intermittency strains nighttime home charging

✅ Grid upgrades, storage, and load management become critical

On September 23, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that will ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars in the Golden State by 2035. Ignoring the hard lessons of this past summer, when California’s solar- and wind-reliant electric grid underwent rolling blackouts, Newsom now adds a huge new burden to the grid in the form of electric vehicle charging, underscoring the need for a much bigger grid to meet demand. If California officials follow through and enforce Newsom’s order, the result will be a green new car version of a train wreck.

In parallel, the state is moving on fleet transitions, allowing electric school buses only from 2035, which further adds to charging demand.

Let’s run some numbers. According to Statista, there are more than 15 million vehicles registered in California. Per the U.S. Department of Energy, there are only 256,000 electric vehicles registered in the state—just 1.7 percent of all vehicles, a share that will challenge state power grids as adoption grows.

Using the Tesla Model3 mid-range model as a baseline for an electric car, you’ll need to use about 62 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of power to charge a standard range Model 3 battery to full capacity. It will take about eight hours to fully charge it at home using the standard Tesla NEMA 14-50 charger, a routine that has prompted questions about whether EVs could crash the grid by households statewide.

Now, let’s assume that by 2040, five years after the mandate takes effect, also assuming no major increase in the number of total vehicles, California manages to increase the number of electric vehicles to 25 percent of the total vehicles in the state. If each vehicle needs an average of 62 kilowatt-hours for a full charge, then the total charging power required daily would be 3,750,000 x 62 KWh, which equals 232,500,000 KWh, or 232.5 gigawatt-hours (GWh) daily.

Utility-scale California solar electric generation according to the energy.ca.gov puts utility-scale solar generation at about 30,000 GWh per year currently. Divide that by 365 days and we get 80 GWh/day, predicted to double, to 160 GWh /day. Even if we add homeowner rooftop solar, and falling prices for solar and home batteries in the wake of blackouts, about half the utility-scale, at 40 GWh/day we come up to 200 GW/h per day, still 32 GWh short of the charging demand for a 25% electric car fleet in California. Even if rooftop solar doubles by 2040, we are at break-even, with 240GWh of production during the day.

Bottom-line, under the most optimistic best-case scenario, where solar operates at 100% of rated capacity (it seldom does), it would take every single bit of the 2040 utility-scale solar and rooftop capacity just to charge the cars during the day. That leaves nothing left for air conditioning, appliances, lighting, etc. It would all go to charging the cars, and that’s during the day when solar production peaks.

But there’s a much bigger problem. Even a grade-schooler can figure out that solar energy doesn’t work at night, when most electric vehicles will be charging at homes, even as some officials look to EVs for grid stability through vehicle-to-grid strategies. So, where does Newsom think all this extra electric power is going to come from?

The wind? Wind power lags even further behind solar power. According to energy.gov, as of 2019, California had installed just 5.9 gigawatts of wind power generating capacity. This is because you need large amounts of land for wind farms, and not every place is suitable for high-return wind power.

In 2040, to keep the lights on with 25 percent of all vehicles in California being electric, while maintaining the state mandate requiring all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045, California would have to blanket the entire state with solar and wind farms. It’s an impossible scenario. And the problem of intermittent power and rolling blackouts would become much worse.

And it isn’t just me saying this. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees. In a letter sent by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to Gavin Newsom on September 28, Wheeler wrote:

“[It] begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today.

“The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences.”

California’s green new car wreck looms large on the horizon. Worse, can you imagine electric car owners’ nightmares when California power companies shut off the power for safety reasons during fire season? Try evacuating in your electric car when it has a dead battery.

Gavin Newsom’s “no more gasoline cars sold by 2035” edict isn’t practical, sustainable, or sensible, much like the 2035 EV mandate in Canada has been criticized by some observers. But isn’t that what we’ve come to expect with any and all of these Green New Deal-lite schemes?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California NEM-3 Tariff ushers a successor Net Energy Metering framework, revising export compensation, TOU rates, and non-bypassable charges to balance ratepayer impacts, rooftop solar growth, and energy storage adoption across diverse communities.

Key Points

The CPUC's successor NEM policy redefining export credits and rates to sustain customer-sited solar and storage.

✅ Sets export compensation methodology beyond NEM 2.0

✅ Aligns TOU rates and non-bypassable charges with costs

✅ Encourages solar-plus-storage adoption and equity access

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has officially commenced its “NEM-3” proceeding, which will establish the successor Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariff to the “NEM 2.0” program in California. This is a highly anticipated, high-stakes proceeding that will effectively modify the rules for the NEM tariff in California, amid ongoing electricity pricing changes that affect residential rooftop solar – arguably the single most important policy mechanism for customer-sited solar over the last decade.

The CPUC’s recent order instituting rule-making (OIR) filing stated that “the major focus of this proceeding will be on the development of a successor to existing NEM 2.0 tariffs. This successor will be a mechanism for providing customer-generators with credit or compensation for electricity generated by their renewable facilities that a) balances the costs and benefits of the renewable electrical generation facility and b) allows customer-sited renewable generation to grow sustainably among different types of customers and throughout California’s diverse communities.”

This successor tariff proceeding was initiated by Assembly Bill 327, which was signed into law in October of 2013. AB 327 is best known as the legislation that directed the CPUC to create the “NEM 2.0” successor tariff, which was adopted by the CPUC in January of 2016.

The original Net Energy Metering program in California (“NEM 1.0”) effectively enabled full-retail value net metering “allowing NEM customers to be compensated for the electricity generated by an eligible customer-sited renewable resource and fed back to the utility over an entire billing period.” Under the NEM 2.0 tariff, customers were required to pay charges that aligned them more closely with non-NEM customer costs than under the original structure. The main changes adopted when the NEM 2.0 was implemented were that NEM 2.0 customer-generators must: (i) pay a one-time interconnection fee; (ii) pay non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour of electricity they consume from the grid; and (iii) customers were required to transfer to a time-of-use (TOU) rate, with potential changes to electric bills for many customers.

NEM 2.0

The commencement of the NEM-3 OIR was preceded by the publishing of a 318-page Net Energy Metering 2.0 Lookback Study, which was published by Itron, Verdant Associates, and Energy and Environmental Economics. The CPUC-commissioned study had been widely anticipated and was expected to act as the starting reference point for the successor tariff proceeding. Verdant also hosted a webinar, which summarized the study’s inputs, assumptions, draft findings and results.

The study utilized several different tests to study the impact of NEM 2.0. The cost effectiveness analysis tests, which estimate costs and benefits attributed to NEM 2.0 include: (i) total resource cost test, (ii) participant cost test, (iii) ratepayer impact measure test, and (iv) program administrator test. The evaluation also included a cost of service analysis, which estimates the marginal cost borne by the utility to serve a NEM 2.0 customer.

The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary stated that “overall, we found that NEM 2.0 participants benefit from the structure, while ratepayers see increased rates.” In every test that the author’s conducted the results generally supported this conclusion for residential customers. There were some exceptions in their findings. For example, in the cost of service analysis the report stated that “residential customers that install customer-sited renewable resources on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them. On the other hand, nonresidential customers pay bills that are slightly higher than their cost of service after installing customer-sited renewable resources. This is largely due to nonresidential customer rates having demand charges (and other fixed fees), and the lower ratio of PV system size to customer load when compared to residential customers.”

Similar debates over solar rate design, including Massachusetts solar demand charges, highlight how demand charges and TOU decisions can affect customer economics.

NEM-3 timeline

Popular content
The preliminary schedule that the CPUC laid out in its OIR estimates that the proceeding will take roughly 15 months in total, starting with a November 2020 pre-hearing conference.

The real meat of the proceeding, where parties will present their proposals for what they believe the successor tariff should be, as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, and really show their hand will not begin until the Spring of 2021. So we’re still a little ways away from seeing the proposals that the key parties to this proceeding, like the Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), solar and storage advocates such as SEIA, CALSSA, Vote Solar, and ratepayer advocates like TURN) will submit.

While the outcome for the new successor NEM tariff is anyone’s guess at this point, some industry policy folks are starting to speculate. We think it is safe to assume that the value of exported energy will get reduced, with debates over income-based utility charges also influencing rate design. How much and the mechanism for how exports get valued remains to be seen. Based on the findings from the lookback study, it seems like the reduction in export value will be more severe than what happened when NEM 2.0 got implemented. In NEM 2.0, non-bypassable charges, which are volumetric charges that must be paid on all imported energy and cannot be netted-out by exports, only equated to roughly $0.02 to $0.03/kWh.

Given that the value of exports will almost certainly get reduced, we expect that to be bullish for energy storage as America goes electric and load shapes evolve. Energy storage attachment rates with solar are already steadily rising in California. By the time NEM-3 starts getting implemented, likely in 2022, we think storage attachment rates will likely escalate further.

We would not be surprised to see future storage attachment rates in California look like the Hawaiian market today, which are upwards of 80% for certain types of customers and applications. Two big questions on our mind are: (i) will the NEM 3.0 rules be different for different customer class: residential, CARE (e.g., low-income or disadvantaged communities), and commercial & industrial; (ii) will the CPUC introduce some sort of glidepath or phased in implementation approach?

The outcome of this proceeding will have far reaching implications on the future of customer-sited solar and energy storage in California. The NEM-3 outcome in California may likely serve as precedent for other states, as California exports its energy policies across the West, and utility territories that are expected to redesign their Net Energy Metering tariffs in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Electricity Decarbonization Costs indicate challenging greenhouse gas reductions across a fragmented grid, with wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas tradeoffs, significant GDP impacts, and Net Zero targets constrained by intermittency and limited interties.

Key Points

Costs to cut power CO2 via wind, solar, gas, and nuclear, considering grid limits, intermittency, and GDP impacts.

✅ Alberta model: eliminate coal; add wind, solar, gas; 26-40% CO2 cuts

✅ Nuclear option enables >75% cuts at higher but feasible system costs

✅ National costs 1-2% GDP; reserves, transmission, land, and waste not included

Along with many western developed countries, Canada has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40–45 percent by 2030 from 2005 emissions levels, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

This is a huge challenge that, when considered on a global scale, will do little to stop climate change because emissions by developing countries are rising faster than emissions are being reduced in developed countries. Even so, the potential for achieving emissions reduction targets is extremely challenging as there are questions as to how and whether targets can be met and at what cost. Because electricity can be produced from any source of energy, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and any combustible material, climate change policies have focused especially on nations’ electricity grids, and in Canada cleaning up electricity is viewed as critical to meeting climate pledges.

Canada’s electricity grid consists of ten separate provincial grids that are weakly connected by transmission interties to adjacent grids and, in some cases, to electricity systems in the United States. At times, these interties are helpful in addressing small imbalances between electricity supply and demand so as to prevent brownouts or even blackouts, and are a source of export revenue for provinces that have abundant hydroelectricity, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec.

Due to generally low intertie capacities between provinces, electricity trade is generally a very small proportion of total generation, though electricity has been a national climate success in recent years. Essentially, provincial grids are stand alone, generating electricity to meet domestic demand (known as load) from the lowest cost local resources.

Because climate change policies have focused on electricity (viz., wind and solar energy, electric vehicles), and Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA, this study employs information from the Alberta electricity system to provide an estimate of the possible costs of reducing national CO2 emissions related to power generation. The Alberta system serves as an excellent case study for examining the potential for eliminating fossil-fuel generation because of its large coal fleet, favourable solar irradiance, exceptional wind regimes, and potential for utilizing BC’s reservoirs for storage.

Using a model of the Alberta electricity system, we find that it is infeasible to rely solely on renewable sources of energy for 100 percent of power generation—the costs are prohibitive. Under perfect conditions, however, CO2 emissions from the Alberta grid can be reduced by 26 to 40 percent by eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy such as wind and solar, and gas, but by more than 75 percent if nuclear power is permitted. The associated costs are estimated to be some $1.4 billion per year to reduce emissions by at most 40 percent, or $1.9 billion annually to reduce emissions by 75 percent or more using nuclear power (an option not considered feasible at this time).

Based on cost estimates from Alberta, and Ontario’s experience with subsidies to renewable energy, and warnings that the switch from fossil fuels to electricity could cost about $1.4 trillion, the costs of relying on changes to electricity generation (essentially eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy sources and gas) to reduce national CO2 emissions by about 7.4 percent range from some $16.8 to $33.7 billion annually. This constitutes some 1–2 percent of Canada’s GDP.

The national estimates provided here are conservative, however. They are based on removing coal-fired power from power grids throughout Canada. We could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset—available wind and solar energy might be lower than indicated by the available data. To take this into account, a reserve market is required, but the costs of operating such a capacity market were not included in the estimates provided in this study. Also ignored are the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, environmental and human health costs, and the life-cycle costs of using intermittent renewable sources of energy, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous wastes from solar panels and wind turbines.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Lion Electric Battery Plant Quebec secures near $100M public investment for an automated battery-pack assembly in Saint-Jérôme, fueling EV manufacturing, R&D, local supply chains, and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle competitiveness and jobs.

Key Points

Automated battery-pack plant in Saint-Jérôme boosting EV manufacturing and strengthening Quebec's supply chain.

✅ $100M joint federal-provincial investment announced

✅ 135 jobs in 2023; 150 more long-term positions

✅ R&D hub to enhance heavy-duty EV battery performance

Canadian Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, and the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, have announced an equal investment totalling nearly $100 million to Lion Electric, as a B.C. battery plant announcement has done in another province, for the establishment of a highly automated battery-pack assembly plant in Saint–Jérôme, in the Laurentians. This project, valued at nearly $185 million, will create 135 jobs when construction of the plant is completed in 2023. It is also expected that 150 additional jobs will be created over the longer term.

For the announcement, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Legault were accompanied by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, François-Philippe Champagne, by Quebec's Minister of Economy and Innovation, Pierre Fitzgibbon, and by Marc Bédard, President and Founder of Lion Electric.

The battery packs assembled at the new plant will be used in Lion Electric vehicles. This strategic investment will allow the company to improve its cost structure, and better control the design and shape of its batteries, making it more competitive in the heavy-duty electric vehicle market, as EV assembly deals put Canada in the race. Ultimately, the company will be able to increase the volume of its vehicle production. Lion Electric will be the first Canadian manufacturer of medium and heavy-duty vehicles to have state-of-the-art, automated battery-pack manufacturing facilities.

The company will also establish a research and development innovation centre within its manufacturing plant, which will allow it to test and refine products for future use, including batteries for emergency vehicles such as ambulances. The company will test innovations from research and development, including energy storage capacity and battery performance. The results will make these products more competitive in the North American market, where a Niagara Region battery plant signals growing demand.

The company said it expects to employ 135 people at the plant when it is operational by 2023. It also plans to invest in a research and development facility that could create a number of spinoff jobs.

"When we talk about an economic recovery that's good for workers, for families and for the environment, this is exactly the kind of project we mean," Trudeau said at a news conference in Montreal.

Trudeau toured Lion Electric's factory in Saint-Jérôme, Que., last March, just before the pandemic. (Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press)
It was the prime minister's first trip to Montreal in more than a year. He said one of the reasons he decided to attend the announcement was to illustrate the importance of the green economy and how Canada can capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot for future job growth.

The project also aligns with the Legault government's desire to create a supply chain within Quebec that is able to feed the electric vehicle industry, where Canada-U.S. collaboration could accelerate progress.

At Monday's announcement, Economy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon spoke at length about the province's deposits of lithium and nickel — key components in electric vehicle batteries — as well as its supply of low-emission hydroelectricity.

"If we play our cards right, we could become world leaders in this market of the future," Fitzgibbon said.

Currently, many of those strategic minerals found in Quebec are exported to Asia where they are turned into battery cells, and then imported back to Quebec by companies like Lion, said Mickaël Dollé, a chemistry professor at the Université de Montréal.

By opening a battery assembly plant in Quebec, Lion could help stimulate more cell-makers, such as the Northvolt project near Montreal, to set up shop in the province. Further localizing the supply chain, Dollé said, means better value and a greener product. 

But other countries have the same goal in mind, he said, and the window for the province to establish itself as an important player in the emerging electric vehicle battery industry is closing quickly, as major Ford Oakville deal commitments accelerate competition.

"The decision has to be taken now, or in the coming months, but if we wait too long we may miss our main goal which is to get our own supply chain in Canada," Dollé said.

What's in a name?
Monday's announcement was closely watched in Quebec for what it foretold about the political future as well as the economic one.

By coming to Montreal and touring a vaccination clinic before making the funding announcement, Trudeau fed speculation in the province that he is preparing to call an election soon.

Intrigue also surrounded the informal meeting Trudeau had with Legault on Monday. The Quebec premier and members of his government have repeatedly expressed frustration with Trudeau during the pandemic.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Germany Renewable Energy Milestone marks renewables supplying 53% of power, with record onshore wind and peak solar; hydrogen-ready gas plants and grid upgrades are planned to balance variability amid Germany's coal phase-out.

Key Points

It marks renewables supplying 53% of Germany's power, driven by wind and solar records in the energy transition.

✅ 53% of generation and 52% of consumption in 2024

✅ Onshore wind hit record; June solar peaked

✅ 24 GW hydrogen-ready gas plants planned for grid balancing

For the first time, renewable energy sources have surpassed half of Germany's electricity production this year, as indicated by data from sustainable energy organizations.

Preliminary figures from the Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research alongside the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW) show that the contribution of green energy has risen to 53%, echoing how renewable power surpassed fossil fuels in Europe recently, a significant increase from 44% in the previous year.

The year saw a record output from onshore wind energy, as investments in European wind power climbed, and an unprecedented peak in solar energy production in June, as reported by the organizations. Additionally, renewable sources constituted 52% of Germany's total power consumption, marking an increase of approximately five percentage points.

Germany, Europe's leading economy, heavily impacted by Russia's reduced natural gas supplies last year, as Europeans push back from Russian oil and gas across the region, has been leaning on renewable sources to bridge the energy gap. This shift comes even as the country temporarily ramped up coal usage last winter. Having phased out its nuclear power plants earlier this year, Germany aims for an 80% clean energy production by 2030.

In absolute numbers, Germany produced a record level of renewable energy this year, supported by a solar power boost during the energy crisis, approximately 267 billion kilowatt-hours, according to the associations. A decrease of 11% in overall energy production facilitated a reduced reliance on fossil fuels.

However, Europe's transition to more sustainable energy sources, particularly offshore wind, has encountered hurdles such as increased financing and component costs, even as neighbors like Ireland pursue an ambitious green electricity goal within four years. Germany continues to face challenges in expanding its renewable energy capacity, as noted by BDEW’s executive board chairwoman, Kerstin Andreae.

Andreae emphasizes that while energy companies are eager to invest in the transition, they often encounter delays due to protracted approval processes, bureaucratic complexities, and scarcity of land despite legislative improvements.

German government officials are close to finalizing a strategy this week for constructing multiple new gas-fired power plants, despite findings that solar plus battery storage can be cheaper than conventional power in Germany, a plan estimated to cost around 40 billion euros ($44 billion). This initiative is a critical part of Germany's strategy to mitigate potential power shortages that might result from the discontinuation of coal power, particularly given the variability in renewable energy sources.

A crucial meeting involving representatives from the Economy and Finance Ministries, along with the Chancellor's Office, is expected to occur late Tuesday. The purpose is to finalize this agreement, according to sources who requested anonymity due to restrictions on public disclosure.

The Economy Ministry, spearheading this project, confirmed that intensive discussions are ongoing, although no further details were disclosed.

Germany's plan involves utilizing approximately 24 gigawatts (GW) of energy from hydrogen, including emerging offshore green hydrogen options, and gas-fired power plants to compensate for the fluctuations in wind and solar power generation. However, the proposal has faced challenges, particularly regarding the allocation of public funds for these projects, with disagreements arising with the European Union's executive in Brussels.

Environmental groups have also expressed criticism of the strategy. They advocate for an expedited end to fossil fuel usage and remain skeptical about the energy sector's arguments favoring natural gas as a transitional fuel. Despite natural gas emitting less carbon dioxide than coal, environmentalists question its role in Germany's energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News