BC Hydro electric vehicle fast charging site operational in Lillooet

Condo EV charging retrofits face strata approval thresholds, installation costs, and limited electrical capacity, but government rebates, subsidies, and smart billing systems can improve ROI, property value, and feasibility amid electrician shortages and infrastructure constraints.

Key Points

Condo EV charging retrofits equip multiunit parking with EV chargers, balancing costs, bylaws, capacity, and rebates.

✅ Requires owner approval (e.g., 75% in B.C.) and clear bylaws

✅ Leverage rebates, subsidies, and load management to cut costs

✅ Plan billing, capacity, and phased installation to increase ROI

Retrofitting an existing multiunit residential building with electric vehicle charging stations is a complex and costly exercise, as high-rise EV charging challenges in MURBs demonstrate, even after subsidies, but the biggest hurdle to adoption may be getting enough condo owners on board.

British Columbia, for example, offers a range of provincial government subsidies to help condo corporations (referred to in B.C. as stratas) with everything from the initial research to installing the chargers. But according to provincial strata law, three-quarters of owners must support the plan before it is implemented, though new strata EV legislation could make approvals easier in some jurisdictions.

“The largest challenge is getting that 75-per-cent majority approval to go ahead,” says EV charging specialist Patrick Breuer with ChargeFwd Ltd., a Vancouver-based sustainable transport consultancy.

Chris Brunner, a strata president in Vancouver, recently upgraded all the building’s parking stalls for EV charging. His biggest challenge was getting the strata’s investment owners, who don’t live in the building and were not interested in spending money, to support the project.

“We had to sell it in two ways,” Mr. Brunner says. “First, that there’s going to be a return on investment, including vehicle-to-building benefits that support savings and grid stability, and second, that there will come a time when this will be required. And if we do it now, taking advantage of the generous rebates and avoiding price increases for expertise and materials, we’ll be ahead of the curve.”

Once the owners have voted in favour, the condo board can begin the planning process and start looking for rebates. The B.C. government will provide a rebate of up to 75 per cent for the consulting phase, with additional provincial rebates available through current programs. It’s referred to as an “EV Ready” plan, which is a professionally prepared document that describes how to implement EV charging fairly, and estimates its cost.

Once a condo has completed the EV Ready plan, it becomes eligible for other rebates, such as the EV Ready Infrastructure subsidy, which will bring power to each individual parking stall through an energized outlet. This is rebated at 50 per cent of expenses, up to $600 a stall.

There are further rebates of up to 75 per cent for installing the charging stations themselves, and B.C. charging rebates extend to home and workplace programs, too. The program is administered by BC Hydro, a Crown corporation that receives funding in annual increments. “Right now, it’s funded until March 31, 2023,” Mr. Breuer says.

“Realtors are valuing [individual charging stations] from $2,000 to $10,000,” he said. The demand for installing EV chargers in buildings has grown to such an extent that it’s hard to find qualified electricians, Mr. Breuer says.

However, even with subsidies, there are some buildings where it doesn’t make financial sense to retrofit them. “If you have to core through thin floors or there’s a big parkade with a large voltage drop, it isn’t financially viable,” Mr. Breuer says. “We do a lot of EV Ready plans, but not all the projects can go ahead.”

For many people, it’s resistance to the unknown that is preventing them from voting for the retrofit, according to Carter Li of Toronto-based Swtch Energy Inc., which provides charging in high-density urban settings. It has done retrofits on 200 multiunit residential buildings in the Toronto area, and Calgary condo charging efforts show similar momentum in other cities, too. “They’re worried about paying for someone else’s electricity,” he says. Selling owners on the idea requires educating them about how the billing will work, maximizing electrical capacity to keep costs down, using government subsidies and the anticipated boost in property value.

Ontario currently does not provide any subsidies for retrofitting condos for EV charging. However, there is a stipulation under the Condominium Act that if owners request EV charging be installed and provide a condo board with sufficient documentation, an assessment will be conducted.

When Jeremy Benning was on the board of his Toronto condo in 2018, a few residents inquired about installing EV charging. A committee of owners did the legwork, and found a company that could do the infrastructure installation as well as set up accounts for individual billing purposes. Residents were surveyed a number of times before going ahead with the installation.

Mr. Benning estimates it cost about $40,000 to install two electrical subpanels to accommodate EV chargers in 20 parking spaces. Although the condo corporation paid the money up front out of its operating budget, everyone who ordered a charger will pay back their share over time. Many who do not even own an EV have opted to add a valuable frill to their unit.

The board considered applying for a subsidy from Natural Resources Canada, but it would require a public charger in the visitor parking lot. “The rebate wasn’t enough to pay for the cost of putting in that charging station,” Mr. Benning says. “Also, you have to maintain it, and what if it gets vandalized? It wasn’t worth it.”

Quebec’s Roulez Vert (Ride Green) program offers extensive provincial rebates and incentives for retrofitting condo buildings. If a single condo owner wants to install an EV charger, the government will refund up to 50 per cent of the installation cost or up to $5,000, whichever is less.

Otherwise, a property manager can qualify for a maximum of $25,000 a year to retrofit a building and can sometimes complete the work in stages. “They may do the first installation in one year, and then continue the next year,” says Léo Viger-Bernard of Recharge Véhicule Électrique (RVE). Recently, the Quebec government confirmed this program will run until 2027.

RVE consults with condo corporations, operates an online platform (murby.com) with resources for building owners, and sells a demand charge controller (DCC), which is an electric vehicle energy management system. The DCC allows an electrician to plug the EV charger directly into the electrical infrastructure of a single condo or apartment unit. Not only does this reduce extra wiring, but it also monitors the electrical consumption in each unit, only powering the charging station when there’s available electricity. Billing is assigned to the actual unit’s electricity bill.

Currently there are about 12,000 DCC units installed in retrofitted buildings across Canada, some that are 40 or 50 years old. “It’s not a question of age; it’s more the location of the electric meters,” Mr. Viger-Bernard says. The DCC can be installed either on the roof or on different floors.

According to Michael Wilk, president of Montreal-based Wilkar Property Management Inc., the biggest barrier is getting condo owners to understand the necessity of doing a retrofit now, as opposed to waiting. He uses price increases to try to convince them.

“Right now, the cost of doing a retrofit is 35 per cent more than it was two years ago,” he says. “If you wait another two years, we can only anticipate it’s going to be 35 per cent higher because of the rising cost of labour, parts and equipment.”

In Nova Scotia, Marc MacDonald of Spark Power Corp. installed an EV charger with a DCC unit at a condo near Halifax about a year ago. “They only had space in their electrical room to add a device for up to 10 EV chargers,” he says. The condo board was hesitant, demanding a great deal of information. “They were concerned about everyone wanting an EV charger.”

Now that Nova Scotia has introduced a program for rebates and incentives to install EV chargers in condos, on-street sites and more, Mr. MacDonald anticipates demand will increase, though Atlantic EV adoption still lags the national average. “But they’ll have to settle with reality. Not everyone can have an EV charger if the building can’t accommodate it.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric Vehicle Price Parity 2027 signals cheaper EV manufacturing as battery costs plunge, widening model lineups, and tighter EU emissions rules; UBS and BloombergNEF foresee parity, with TCO advantages over ICE amid growing fast-charging networks.

Key Points

EV cost parity in 2027 when manufacturing undercuts ICE, led by cheaper batteries, wider lineups, and emissions policy.

✅ Battery costs drop 58% next decade, after 88% fall

✅ Manufacturing parity across segments from 2027

✅ TCO favors EVs; charging networks expand globally

A Bloomberg/NEF report commissioned by Transport & Environment forecasts 2027 as the year when electric vehicles will start to become cheaper to manufacture than their internal combustion equivalents across all segments, aligning with analyses that the EV age is arriving ahead of schedule for consumers and manufacturers alike, mainly due to a sharp drop in battery prices and the appearance of new models by more manufacturers.

Batteries, which have fallen in price by 88% over the past decade and are expected to plunge by a further 58% over the next 10 years, make up between one-quarter and two-fifths of the total price of a vehicle. The average pre-tax price of a mid-range electric vehicle is around €33,300, and higher upfront prices concern many UK buyers compared to €18,600 for its diesel or gasoline equivalent. In 2026, both are expected to cost around €19,000, while in 2030, the same electric car will cost €16,300 before tax, while its internal combustion equivalent will cost €19,900, and that’s without factoring in government incentives.

Other reports, such as a recent one by UBS, put the date of parity a few years earlier, by 2024, after which they say there will be little reason left to buy a non-electric vehicle, as the market has expanded from near zero to 2 million in just five years.

In Europe, carmakers will become a particular stakeholder in this transition due to heavy fines for exceeding emissions limits calculated on the basis of the total number of vehicles sold. Increasing the percentage of electric vehicles in the annual sales portfolio is seen by the industry as the only way to avoid these fines. In addition to brands such as Bentley or Jaguar Land Rover, which have announced the total abandonment of internal combustion engine technology by 2025, or Volvo, which has set 2030 as the target date, other companies such as Ford, which is postponing this date in its home market, also set 2030 for the European market, which clearly demonstrates the suitability of this type of policy.

Nevertheless internal combustion vehicles will continue to travel on the roads or will be resold in developing countries. In addition to the price factor, which is even more accentuated when estimates are carried out in terms of total cost of ownership calculations due to the lower cost of electric recharging versus fuel and lower maintenance requirements, other factors such as the availability of fast charging networks must be taken into account.

While price parity is approaching, it is worth thinking about the factors that are causing car sales, which are still behind gasoline models in share, to suffer: the chip crisis, which is strongly affecting the automotive industry and will most likely extend until 2022, is creating production problems and the elimination of numerous advanced electronic options in many models, which reduces the incentive to purchase a vehicle at the present time. These types of reasons could lead some consumers to postpone purchasing a vehicle precisely when we may be talking about the final years for internal combustion technology, which would increase the likelihood that, later on and as the price gap closes, they would opt for an electric vehicle.

Finally, in the United States, the ambitious infrastructure plan put in place by the Biden administration also promises to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles by addressing key barriers to mainstream adoption such as charging access, which in turn is fueling the interest of automotive companies to have more electric vehicles in their range. In Europe, meanwhile, more Chinese brands offering electric vehicles are beginning to enter the most advanced markets, such as Norway and the Netherlands, with plans to expand to the rest of the continent with very competitive offers in terms of price.

One way or another, the future of the automotive industry is electric, and the transition will take place during the remainder of this decade. You might want to think about it if you are weighing whether it’s time to buy an electric car this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Texas Battery Storage Investment Boom draws BlackRock, SK, and UBS, leveraging ERCOT price volatility, renewable energy growth, and utility-scale energy storage arbitrage to enhance grid reliability, resilience, and double-digit returns across high-demand nodes.

Key Points

Texas sees a rush into battery storage, using ERCOT price spreads to bolster grid reliability and earn about 20% returns.

✅ Investors exploit price volatility, peak-demand spreads.

✅ Utility-scale storage enhances ERCOT reliability.

✅ Top players: BlackRock, SK E&S, UBS; 700 MW deals.

BlackRock, Korea's SK, Switzerland's UBS and other companies are chasing an investment boom in battery storage plants in Texas, lured by the prospect of earning double-digit returns from the power grid problems plaguing the state, according to project owners, developers and suppliers.

Projects coming online are generating returns of around 20%, compared with single digit returns for solar and wind projects, according to Rhett Bennett, CEO of Black Mountain Energy Storage, one of the top developers in the state.

"Resolving grid issues with utility-scale energy storage is probably the hottest thing out there,” he said.

The rapid expansion of battery storage could help, through efforts like a virtual power plant initiative in Texas, prevent a repeat of the February 2021 ice storm and grid collapse which killed 246 people and left millions of Texans without power for days.

The battery rush also puts the Republican-controlled state at the forefront of President Joe Biden's push to expand renewable energy use.

Power prices in Texas can swing from highs of about $90 per megawatt hour (MWh) on a normal summer day to nearly $3,000 per MWh when demand surges on a day with less wind power, a dynamic tied to wind curtailment on the Texas grid according to a simulation by the federal government's U.S. Energy Information Administration.

That volatility, a product of demand and higher reliance on intermittent wind and solar energy, has fueled a rush to install battery plants, aided by falling battery costs, that store electricity when it is cheap and abundant and sell when supplies tighten and prices soar.

Texas last year accounted for 31% of new U.S. grid-scale energy storage, with much of it pairing storage with solar, according to energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, second only to California which has had a state mandate for battery development for a decade.

And Texas is expected to account for nearly a quarter of the U.S. grid-scale storage market over the next five years, a trajectory consistent with record U.S. solar-plus-storage growth noted by analysts, according to Wood Mackenzie projections shared with Reuters.

Developers and energy traders said locations offering the highest returns -- in strapped areas of the grid -- will become increasingly scarce as more storage comes online and, as diversifying resources for better projects suggests, electricity prices stabilize.

Texas lawmakers this week voted to provide new subsidies for natural gas power plants in a bid to shore up reliability. But the legislation also contains provisions that industry groups said could encourage investment in battery storage by supporting 'unlayering' peak demand approaches.

Amid the battery rush, BlackRock acquired developer Jupiter Power from private equity firm EnCap Investments late last year. Korea's SK E&S acquired Key Capture Energy from Vision Ridge Partners in 2021 and UBS bought five Texas projects from Black Mountain last year for a combined 700 megawatts (MW) of energy storage. None of the sales' prices were disclosed.

SK E&S said its acquisition of Key Capture was part of a strategy to invest in U.S. grid resiliency.

"SK E&S views energy storage solutions in Texas and across the U.S. as a core technology that supports a new energy infrastructure system to ensure American homes and businesses have affordable power," the company said in a statement.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Oxford Battery Energy Storage Project will store surplus renewable power near South-West Oxford and Woodstock, improving grid stability, peak shaving, and reliability, pending IESO approval and Hydro One transmission interconnection in Ontario.

Key Points

A Boralex battery project in South-West Oxford storing surplus power for Woodstock at peak demand pending IESO approval.

✅ 2028 commercial operation target

✅ Connects to Hydro One transmission line

✅ Peak shaving to stabilize grid costs

A Quebec-based renewable energy company is proposing to build a battery energy storage system in Oxford County near Woodstock.

The Oxford battery energy storage project put forward by Boralex Inc., if granted approval, would be ready for commercial operation in 2028. The facility would be in the Township of South-West Oxford, but also would serve Woodstock businesses and residences, supported by provincial disconnect moratoriums for customers, due to the city’s proximity to the site.

Battery storage systems charge when energy sources produce more energy than customers need, and, complementing Ontario’s energy-efficiency programs across the province, discharge during peak demand to provide a reliable, steady supply of energy.

Darren Suarez, Boralex’s vice-president of public affairs and communications in North America, said, “The system we’re talking about is a very large battery that will help at times when the electric grid has too much energy on the system. We’ll be able to charge our batteries, and when there’s a need, we can discharge the batteries to match the needs of the electric grid.”

South-West Oxford is a region Boralex has pinpointed for a battery storage project. “We look at grid needs as a whole, and where there is a need for battery storage, and we’ve identified this location as being a real positive for the grid, to help with its stability, a priority underscored by the province’s nuclear alert investigation and public safety focus,” Suarez said.

Suarez could not provide an estimated cost for the proposed facility but said the project would add about 75 jobs during the construction phase, in a sector where the OPG credit rating remains stable. Once the site is operational, only one or two employees will be necessary to maintain the facility, he said.

Boralex requires approval from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the corporation that co-ordinates and integrates Ontario’s electricity system operations across the province, for the Oxford battery energy storage project.

Upon approval, the project will connect with an existing Hydro One transmission line located north of the proposed site. “[Hydro One] has a process to review the project and review the location and ensure we are following safety standards and protocols in terms of integrating the project into the grid, with broader policy considerations like Ottawa’s hydro heritage also in view, but they are not directly involved in the development of the project itself,” Suarez said.

The proposal has been presented to South-West Oxford council. South-West Oxford Mayor David Mayberry said, “(Council) is still waiting to see what permits are necessary to be addressed if the proposal moves forward.”

Mayberry said the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry also would be reviewing the proposed project.

Thornton Sand and Gravel, the location of the proposed facility, was viewed positively by Mayberry. “From a positive perspective, they’re not using farmland. There is a plus we’re not using farmland, but there is concern something could leak into the aquifer. These questions need to be answered before it can be to the satisfaction of the community,” Mayberry said.

An open house was held on Sept. 14 to provide information to residents. Suarez said about 50 people showed up and the response was positive. “Many people came out to see what we planned for the project and there was a lot of support for the location because of where it actually is, and how it integrates into the community. It’s considered good use of the land by many of the people that were able to join us on that day,” Suarez said.

The Quebec-based energy company has been operating in Ontario for nearly 15 years and has wind farms in the Niagara and Chatham-Kent regions.

Boralex also is involved in two other battery storage projects in Ontario. The Hagersville project is a 40-minute drive northwest of Hamilton, and the other is in Tilbury, a community in Chatham-Kent. Commercial operation for both sites is planned to begin in 2025.

South-West Oxford and Woodstock will see some financial benefits from the energy storage system, Suarez said.

“It will help to stabilize energy costs. It will contribute to really shaving the most expensive energy on the system off the system. They’re going to take electricity when it’s the least costly, taking advantage of Ontario’s ultra-low overnight pricing options and utilize that least costly energy and displace the most costly energy.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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

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