What to know about DOE's hydrogen hubs

Michigan Distributed Energy Cap Repeal advances a bipartisan bill to boost rooftop solar and net metering, countering DTE and Consumers Energy claims, expanding energy freedom, jobs, and climate resilience across investor-owned utility territories.

Key Points

A Michigan bill to remove the 1% distributed energy cap, expanding rooftop solar, net metering, and clean energy jobs.

✅ Removes 1% distributed generation cap statewide

✅ Supports rooftop solar, net metering, and job growth

✅ Counters utility cost-shift claims with updated tariffs

A bipartisan group of Michigan lawmakers has introduced legislation to eliminate a 1% cap on distributed energy in the state’s investor-owned utility territories.

It’s the third time in recent years that such legislation has been introduced. Though utilities and their political allies have successfully blocked it to date, through tactics some critics say reflect utilities tilting the solar market by incumbents, advocates see an opportunity with a change in state Republican caucus leadership and Michigan’s burgeoning solar industry approaching the cap in some utility territories.

The bill also has support from a broad swath of legislators for reasons having to do with job creation, energy freedom and the environment, amid broader debates over states' push for renewables and affordability. Already the bill has received multiple hearings, even as DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, Michigan’s largest private utilities, are ramping up attacks in an effort to block the bill. 

“It’s going to be vehemently opposed by the utilities but there are only benefits to this if you are anybody but DTE,” said Democratic state Rep. Yousef Rabhi, who cosigned HB 4236 and has helped draft language in previous bills. “If we remove the cap, then we’re putting the public’s interest first, and we’re putting DTE’s interest first if we keep the cap in place.” 

The Michigan Legislature enacted the cap as part of a sweeping 2016 energy bill that clean energy advocates say included a number of provisions that have kneecapped the small-scale distributed energy industry, particularly home solar. The law caps distributed energy production at 1% of a utility’s average in-state peak load for the past five years. 

Republicans have controlled the Legislature and committees since the law was enacted, amid parallel moves such as the Wyoming clean energy bill in another state, and previous attempts to cut the language haven’t received House committee hearings. However, former Republican House leader Lee Chatfield has been replaced, and already the new bill, introduced by Republican state Rep. Gregory Markkanen, the energy committee’s vice chair, has had two hearings. 

Previous attempts to cut the language were also a part of a larger package of bills, and this time around the bill is a standalone. The legislation is also moving as Consumers and Upper Peninsula Power Co. have voluntarily doubled their cap to two percent, which advocates say highlights the need to repeal the cap . 

Rabhi said there’s bipartisan support because many conservatives and progressives view it as an infringement on customers’ energy freedom since the cap will eventually effectively prohibit new distributed energy generation. Legislators say the existing law kills jobs because it severely limits the clean energy industry’s growth, and Rabhi said he’s also strongly motivated by increasing renewable energy production to address climate change. 

In February, Michigan Public Service Commission Chairman Dan Scripps testified to the House committee, with observers also pointing to FERC action on aggregated DERs as relevant context, that the commission is “supportive in taking steps to ensure solar developers in Michigan are able to continue operating and thus support in concept the idea of lifting or eliminating the cap” in order to protect the home solar industry. 

The state’s solar industry has long criticized the cap, and removing it is a “no brainer,” said Dave Strenski, executive director of Solar Ypsi, which promotes rooftop solar in Ypsilanti. 

“If they have a cap and we reach that cap, then rooftop solar is shut down in Michigan,” he said. “The utilities don’t mind solar as long as they own it, and that’s what it boils down to.”  

The state’s utilities see the situation differently. Spokespeople for DTE and Consumers told the Energy News Network that lifting the cap would shift the cost burden of maintaining their territory-wide infrastructure from all customers to low income customers who can’t afford to install solar panels, often invoking reliability examples such as California's reliance on fossil generation to justify caution.

The bill “doesn’t address the subsidy certain customers are paid at the expense of those who cannot afford to put solar panels on their homes,” said Katie Carey, Consumers Energy’s spokesperson. 

However, clean energy advocates argue that studies have found that to be untrue. And even if it were true, Rabhi said, the utilities told lawmakers in 2016 that a new inflow/outflow tariff that the companies successfully pushed for to replace net metering dramatically reduced compensation for home solar users and would address that inequality. 

“DTE’s and Consumers’ own argument is that by making that change, distributed generation is no longer a ‘burden’ on low income customers, so now we have inflow/outflow and the problem should be solved,” Rabhi said. 

He added that claims that DTE and Consumers are looking out for low-income customers are disingenuous because they have repeatedly fought larger allowances for programs that help those customers, and refuse to “dip into their massive corporate profits and make sure poor people don’t have to pay as much for electricity.”

“I don’t want to hear a sob story from DTE about how putting solar panels on the house is going to hurt poor people,” he said. “That is entirely the definition of hypocrisy — that’s the utilities using poor people as a pawn and that’s why people are sick of these corporations.” 

The companies have already begun their public relations attack designed to help thwart the bill. DTE and Consumers spread money generously among Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature each cycle, and the two companies’ dark money nonprofits launched a round of ads targeting Democratic lawmakers, reflecting the broader solar wars playing out nationally. Several sit on the House Energy Committee, which must approve the bill before it can go in front of the full Legislature. 

The DTE-backed Alliance For Michigan Power and Consumers Energy-funded Citizens Energizing Michigan’s Economy have purchased dozens of Facebook ads alluding to action by the legislators, though there hasn’t been a vote. 

Facebook ads aren’t uncommon as they get “bang for their buck,” said Matt Kasper, research director with utility industry watchdog Energy And Policy Institute. Already hundreds of thousands of people have potentially viewed the ads and the groups have only spent thousands of dollars. The ads are likely designed to get Facebook users to interact with the legislators on the issue, Kasper said, even if there’s little information in the ad, and the info in the ad that does exist is highly misleading.

DTE and Consumers spokespersons declined to comment on the spending and directed questions to the dark money nonprofits. No one there could be reached for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

IEA World Energy Outlook 2020 highlights solar power as the cheapest electricity, projects faster renewables growth, models net-zero pathways, assesses COVID-19 impacts, oil and gas demand, and policy scenarios including STEPS, SDS, and NZE2050.

Key Points

A flagship IEA report analyzing energy trends, COVID-19 impacts, renewables growth, and pathways to net-zero in 2050.

✅ Solar now the cheapest electricity in most major markets

✅ Scenarios: STEPS, SDS, NZE2050, plus delayed recovery case

✅ Oil and gas demand uncertain; CO2 peak needs stronger policy

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use and progress in the global energy transition over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables across markets. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

Despite a more rapid rise for renewables and a “structural” decline for coal, the IEA says it is too soon to declare a peak in global oil use, unless there is stronger climate action. Similarly, it says demand for gas could rise 30% by 2040, unless the policy response to global warming steps up.

This means that, while global CO2 emissions have effectively peaked flatlining in 2019 according to the IEA, they are “far from the immediate peak and decline” needed to stabilise the climate. The IEA says achieving net-zero emissions will require “unprecedented” efforts from every part of the global economy, not just the power sector.

For the first time, the IEA includes detailed modeling of a 1.5C pathway that reaches global net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. It says individual behaviour change, such as working from home “three days a week”, would play an “essential” role in reaching this new “net-zero emissions by 2050 case” (NZE2050).

Future scenarios
The IEA’s annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) arrives every autumn and contains some of the most detailed and heavily scrutinised analysis of the global energy system. Over hundreds of densely packed pages, it draws on thousands of datapoints and the IEA’s World Energy Model.

The outlook includes several different scenarios, to reflect uncertainty over the many decisions that will affect the future path of the global economy, as well as the route taken out of the coronavirus crisis during the “critical” next decade. The WEO also aims to inform policymakers by showing how their plans would need to change if they want to shift onto a more sustainable path, including creating the right clean electricity investment incentives to accelerate progress.

This year it omits the “current policies scenario” (CPS), which usually “provides a baseline…by outlining a future in which no new policies are added to those already in place”. This is because “[i]t is difficult to imagine this ‘business as-usual’ approach prevailing in today’s circumstances”.

Those circumstances are the unprecedented fallout from the coronavirus pandemic, which remains highly uncertain as to its depth and duration. The crisis is expected to cause a dramatic decline in global energy demand in 2020, with oil demand also dropping sharply as fossil fuels took the biggest hit.

The main WEO pathway is again the “stated policies scenario” (STEPS, formerly NPS). This shows the impact of government pledges to go beyond the current policy baseline. Crucially, however, the IEA makes its own assessment of whether governments are credibly following through on their targets.

The report explains:

“The STEPS is designed to take a detailed and dispassionate look at the policies that are either in place or announced in different parts of the energy sector. It takes into account long-term energy and climate targets only to the extent that they are backed up by specific policies and measures. In doing so, it holds up a mirror to the plans of today’s policy makers and illustrates their consequences, without second-guessing how these plans might change in future.”

The outlook then shows how plans would need to change to plot a more sustainable path, highlighting efforts to replace fossil fuels with electricity in time to meet climate goals. It says its “sustainable development scenario” (SDS) is “fully aligned” with the Paris target of holding warming “well-below 2C…and pursuing efforts to limit [it] to 1.5C”. (This interpretation is disputed.)

The SDS sees CO2 emissions reach net-zero by 2070 and gives a 50% chance of holding warming to 1.65C, with the potential to stay below 1.5C if negative emissions are used at scale.

The IEA has not previously set out a detailed pathway to staying below 1.5C with 50% probability, with last year’s outlook only offering background analysis and some broad paragraphs of narrative.

For the first time this year, the WEO has “detailed modelling” of a “net-zero emissions by 2050 case” (NZE2050). This shows what would need to happen for CO2 emissions to fall to 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 on the way to net-zero by 2050, with a 50% chance of meeting the 1.5C limit, with countries such as Canada's net-zero electricity needs in focus to get there.

The final pathway in this year’s outlook is a “delayed recovery scenario” (DRS), which shows what might happen if the coronavirus pandemic lingers and the global economy takes longer to recover, with knock-on reductions in the growth of GDP and energy demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada EV-ready rules for MURBs vary by city, with municipal bylaws dictating at-home Level 2 charging in condos, apartments, strata, and townhomes; BC leads, others evaluating updates to building codes.

Key Points

Municipal bylaws mandate EV-ready, Level 2 charging in multi-unit housing; requirements vary by city.

✅ No federal/provincial mandates; municipal bylaws set EV access.

✅ B.C. leads; many cities require 100% EV-ready residential stalls.

✅ Other cities are evaluating code changes; enforcement varies widely.

An absence of federal, provincial rules for EV charging in Canada’s condos, apartment buildings, strata or townhomes punts the issue to municipalities and leaves many strata owners to fend for themselves, finds Electric Autonomy’s cross-Canada guide to municipal building code regulations for EV charging in MURBs

When it comes to reducing barriers to electric vehicle adoption in Canada, one of the most critical steps governments can do is to help provide access to at-home EV charging.

While this is usually not a complicated undertaking in single-unit dwellings, in multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs) which includes apartments, condos, strata and townhomes, the situation and the experience is quite varied for Canadian EV drivers, and retrofitting condos can add complexity depending on the city in which they live.

In Canada, there are no regulations in the national building code that require new or existing condos, apartment buildings, strata or townhomes to offer EV charging. Provinces and territories are able to create their own building laws and codes, but none have added anything yet to support EV charging. Instead, some municipalities are provided with the latitude by their respective provinces to amend local bylaws and add regulations that will require multi-residential units — both new builds and existing ones — to be EV-ready.

The result is that the experience and process of MURB residents getting EV charging infrastructure access is highly fragmented across Canada.

In order to bring more transparency, Electric Autonomy Canada has compiled a roundup of all the municipalities in Canada with existing regulations that require all new constructions to be EV-ready for the future and those cities that have announced publicly they are considering implementing the same.

The tally shows that 21 cities in British Columbia and one city in both Quebec and Ontario have put in place some EV-ready regulations. There are eight other municipalities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland evaluating their own building code amendments, including Calgary’s condo charging expansion initiatives across apartments and condos.

No municipalities in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have any regulations around this. City councils in Edmonton, Saskatoon, Hamilton, Sarnia, Halifax and St. John’s have started looking into it, but no regulations have officially been made.

British Columbia
B.C. is, by far, Canada’s most advanced province in terms of having mandates for EV charging access in condos, apartment buildings, strata or townhomes, leading the country in expanding EV charging with 20 cities with modified building codes to stipulate EV-readiness requirements and one city in the process of implementing them.

City of Vancouver: Bylaw 10908 – Section 10.2.3. was amended on July 1, 2014, to include provisions for Level 2 EV charging infrastructure at all residential and commercial buildings. On March 14, 2018, the bylaw was updated to adopt a 100 per cent EV-ready policy from 20 per cent to 100 per cent. The current bylaw also requires one EV-ready stall for single-family residences with garages and 10 per cent of parking stalls to be EV-ready for commercial buildings.

City of Burnaby: Zoning Bylaw 13903 – Section 800.8, which took effect on September 1st, required Level 2 energized outlets in all new residential parking spaces. This includes both single-family homes and multi-unit residential buildings. Parking spaces for secondary suites and visitor parking are exempt, but all other stalls in new buildings must be 100 per cent EV-ready.

City of Nelson: The city amended its Off-Street Parking and Landscaping Bylaw No. 3274 – Section 7.4 in 2019 to have at least one parking space per dwelling unit feature
Level 2 charging or higher in new single-family and multi-unit residential buildings, starting in 2020. For every 10 parking spaces available at a dwelling, two stalls must have Level 2 charging capabilities.

City of Coquitlam: The Zoning Bylaw No. 4905 – Section 714 was amended on October 29, 2018, to require all new construction, including single-family residences and MURBs, to have a minimum of one energized outlet capable of Level 2 charging or higher for every dwelling unit. Parking spaces designated for visitors are exempt.

If the number of parking spaces is less than the number of dwelling units, all residential parking spots must have an energized outlet with Level 2 or higher charging capabilities.

City of North Vancouver: According to Zoning Bylaw No. 6700 – Section 909, all parking spaces in all new residential multi-family buildings must include Level 2 EV charging infrastructure as of June 2019 and 10 per cent of residential visitor parking spaces must include Level 2 EV charging infrastructure as of Jan. 2022.

District of North Vancouver: Per the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy, updated on March 17, 2021, all parking stalls — not including visitor parking — must feature energized outlets capable of providing Level 2 charging or higher for multi-family residences.

City of New Westminster: As of April 1, 2019, all new buildings with at least one residential unit are required to have a Level 2 energized outlet to the residential parking spaces, according to Electric Vehicle Ready Infrastructure Zoning Bylaw 8040, 2018. Energized Level 2 outlets will not be required for visitor parking spaces.

City of Port Moody: Zoning Bylaw No. 2937 – Section 6.11 mandated that all spaces in new residential constructions starting from March 1, 2019, required an energized outlet capable of Level 2 charging. A minimum of 20 per cent of spaces in new commercial constructions from March 1, 2019, required an energized outlet capable of Level 2 charging.

City of Richmond: All new buildings and residential parking spaces from April 1, 2018, excluding those provided for visitors’ use, have had an energized outlet capable of providing Level 2 charging or higher to the parking space, says Zoning Bylaw 8500 – Section 7.15.

District of Saanich: Zoning Bylaw No. 8200 – Section 7 specified that all new residential MURBs are required to provide Level 2 charging after Sept. 1, 2020.

District of Squamish: Bylaw No. 2610, 2018 Subsection 41.11(f) required 100 per cent of off-street parking stalls to have charging infrastructure starting from July 24, 201, in any shared parking areas for multiple-unit residential uses.

City of Surrey: Zoning By-law No. 12000 – Part 5(7) was amended on February 25, 2019 to say builders must construct and install an energized electrical outlet for 100 per cent of residential parking spaces, with home and workplace charging rebates helping adoption, 50 per cent of visitor parking spaces, and 20 per cent of commercial parking spaces. Each energized electrical outlet must be capable of providing Level 2 or a higher level of electric vehicle charging

District of West Vancouver: Per Zoning Bylaw No. 4662 – Sections 142.10; 141.01(4), new dwelling units, all parking spaces for residential use, except visitor parking, need to include an energized outlet that is: (a) capable of providing Level 2 charging for an electric vehicle; (b) labelled for the use of electric vehicle charging.

City of Victoria: In effect since October 1, 2020, the Zoning Bylaw No. 80-159 – Schedule C Section 2.4 stipulates that all residential parking spaces in new residential developments must have an energized electrical outlet installed that can provide Level 2 charging for an electric vehicle, and residents can access EV charger rebates to offset costs. This requirement applies to both single-family and multi-unit residential dwellings but not visitor parking spaces.

Township of Langley: In Zoning Bylaw No. 2500 – Section 107.3, all new residential construction, including single-home dwellings, townhouses and apartments, required one space per dwelling unit to have EV charging requirements, starting from Nov. 4, 2019.

Town of View Royal: As per Zoning Bylaw No. 900 – Section 5.13, every commercial or multi-unit residential construction with more than 100 parking spots must provide an accessible electric vehicle charging station on the premises for patrons or residents. This bylaw was adopted on Feb. 2021.

Nanaimo: According to the Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw No. 7266 – Section 7.7, a minimum of 25 per cent of all off-street parking spots in any common parking area for multifamily residential housing must have shared access to a Level 2 EV charging, and have an electrical outlet box wired with a separate branch circuit capable of supplying electricity to support both Level 1 and Level 2 charging.

Port Coquitlam: For residential buildings that do not have a common parking area, one parking space per dwelling unit is required to provide “roughed-in” charging infrastructure, put in effect on Jan. 23, 2018. This must include an electrical outlet box located within three metres of the unit’s parking space, according to Zoning Bylaw No. 3630 – Section 2.5.10;11. For a residential building with a common parking area, a separate single utility electrical meter and disconnect should be provided in line with the electrical panel(s) intended to provide EV charging located within three metres of the parking space.

Maple Ridge: The city’s Bylaw No. 4350-1990 – Schedule F says for apartments, each parking space provided for residential use, excluding visitor parking spaces, will be required to have roughed-in infrastructure capable of providing Level 2 charging.

Apartments and townhouses with a minimum of 50 per cent of required visitor parking spaces will need partial infrastructure capable of Level 2 charging.

White Rock: The city is currently considering changes to its Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000. On March 18, 2021, the Environmental Advisory Committee presented recommendations that would require all resident parking stalls to be Level 2 EV-ready in new multi-unit residential buildings and 50 per cent of visitor parking stalls to be Level 2 EV-ready in new multi-unit residential buildings.

Kamloops: The city of Kamloops is looking to draft a zoning amendment bylaw that would require new residential developments, all new single-family, single-family with a secondary suite, two-family, and multi-family residential developments, to have EV-ready parking with one parking stall per dwelling unit, at the beginning of Jan. 1, 2023.

Kamloops’ sustainability services supervisor Glen Cheetham told Electric Autonomy Canada in an email statement that the city’s council has given direction to staff to “conduct one final round of engagement with industry before bringing the zoning amendment bylaw to Council mid-June for first and second reading, followed by a public hearing and third reading/approval.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Toronto Olli 2.0 Self-Driving Shuttle connects West Rouge to Rouge Hill GO with autonomous micro-transit. Electric shuttle pilot by Local Motors and Pacific Western Transportation, funded by Transport Canada, features accessibility, TTC and Metrolinx support.

Key Points

An autonomous micro-transit pilot linking West Rouge to Rouge Hill GO, with accessibility and onboard staff.

✅ Last-mile link: West Rouge to Rouge Hill GO

✅ Accessible: ramp, wheelchair securement, A/V announcements

✅ Operated with attendants; funded by Transport Canada

The city of Toronto, which recently opened an EV education centre to support adoption, has approved the use of a small, self-driving electric shuttle vehicle that will connect its West Rouge neighbourhood to the Rouge Hill GO station, a short span of a few kilometres.

It’s called the Olli 2.0, and it’s a micro-shuttle with service provided by Local Motors, in partnership with Pacific Western Transportation, as the province makes it easier to build EV charging stations to support growing demand.

The vehicle is designed to hold only eight people, and has an accessibility ramp, a wheelchair securement system, audio and visual announcements, and other features for providing rider information, aligning with transit safety policies such as the TTC’s winter lithium-ion device restrictions across the system.

“We are continuing to move our city forward on many fronts including micro-transit as we manage the effects of COVID-19,” said Mayor John Tory. “This innovative project will provide valuable insight, while embracing innovation that could help us build a better, more sustainable and equitable transportation network.”

At the provincial level, the public EV charging network has faced delays, underscoring infrastructure challenges.

Although the vehicle is “self-driving,” it will still require two people onboard for every trip during the six- to 12-month trial; those people will be a certified operator from Pacific Western Transportation, and either a TTC ambassador from an agency introducing battery electric buses across its fleet, or a Metrolinx customer service ambassador.

Funding for the program comes from Transport Canada, as part of a ten-year pilot program to test automated vehicles on Ontario’s roads that was approved in 2016, and it complements lessons from the TTC’s largest battery-electric bus fleet as well as emerging vehicle-to-grid programs that engage EV owners.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EV Carpocalypse signals potential mismatch between electric vehicle production and demand, as charging infrastructure, utility coordination, and plug-in hybrid strategies lag forecasts, while state mandates and market-share plays drive cautious, data-informed scaling.

Key Points

EV Carpocalypse describes overbuilt EV supply versus demand amid charging rollout, mandates, and risk-managed scaling.

✅ Forecasts vs actual EV demand may diverge in near term

✅ Charging infrastructure and utilities lag vehicle output

✅ Mandates and PHEVs cushion adoption while data guides scaling

According to Forbes contributor David Kiley, and Wards Automotive columnist John McElroy, there may be an impending “carpocalypse” of electric vehicles on the way. Sounds very damning and it’s certainly not the upbeat tone I’ve taken on nearly every piece of EV demand content I’ve authored but the author, Kiley does bring up some interesting points worth considering. EV Adoption is happening, and it’s certainly doing so at ever faster rates as the market nears an EV inflection point today. The infrastructure (charging stations, utility cooperation) is being built out more slowly than vehicle manufacturers are producing cars but, as the GM president on EV hurdles has noted, the issue seems to be just that, maybe even the short and medium term plans for EV manufacturing are too aggressive.

#google#

With new EV and plug-in hybrid vehicle sales representing a mere .6% of new car cales in the US, a sign that EV sales remain behind gas cars even as new models proliferate, car makers are are going to be spending more than $100 billion to come out with more than a hundred models of battery electric vheicles which also includes PHEVs and the fear is these vehicles aren’t going to sell in the numbers that automakers and industry analysts may have expected. But forecasts are just that, forecasts, even as U.S. EV sales surge into 2024 suggest momentum. So there’s a valid argument to be made that they’ll either overshoot the true mark or come in way below the actual amount. With nine U.S. states mandating that 15% of new cars sold be EVs by 2025, you could say that at least automakers have supporters in state government helping to push the new technology into the hands of more drivers.

Still, it’s anyone’s guess as to what true adoption will be, and a brief Q1 2024 market share dip underscores lingering volatility. The use of big data and just in time manufacturing will ensure that manufacturers will miss the mark on EVs by less than they have in the past, and will able to cope with breaking even on these vehicles for the sake of gobbling up precious early stage market share. After all, many vendors have up to this point been very willing to break even or make a loss on their lease-only EVs or on EV or hybrid financing in order to gain that share and build out their brand awareness and technical prowess. With some stops and starts, demand will meet supply or supply may need to meet demand but either way, the EV adoption wave is coming to a driveway near you. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News