Ontario Making it Easier to Build Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Ukraine Wind Energy Resilience shields the grid with wind power along the Black Sea, dispersing turbines to withstand missile attacks, accelerate clean energy transition, aid EU integration, and strengthen energy security and rapid recovery.

Key Points

A strategy in Ukraine using wind farms to harden the grid, ensure clean power, and speed recovery from missile strikes.

✅ Distributed turbines reduce single-point-of-failure risk

✅ Faster repair of substations and lines than power plants

✅ Supports EU-aligned clean energy and grid security goals

The giants catch the wind with their huge arms, helping to keep the lights on in Ukraine — newly built windmills, on plains along the Black Sea.

In 15 months of war, Russia has launched countless missiles and exploding drones at power plants, hydroelectric dams and substations, trying to black out as much of Ukraine as it can, as often as it can, even amid talk of limiting attacks on energy sites that has surfaced, in its campaign to pound the country into submission.

The new Tyligulska wind farm stands only a few dozen miles from Russian artillery, but Ukrainians say it has a crucial advantage over most of the country’s grid, helping stabilize the system even as electricity exports have occasionally resumed under fire.

A single, well-placed missile can damage a power plant severely enough to take it out of action, but Ukrainian officials say that doing the same to a set of windmills — each one tens of meters apart from any other — would require dozens of missiles. A wind farm can be temporarily disabled by striking a transformer substation or transmission lines, but these are much easier to repair than power plants.

“It is our response to Russians,” said Maksym Timchenko, CEO of DTEK Group, the company that built the turbines in the southern Mykolaiv region — the first phase of what is planned as Eastern Europe’s largest wind farm. “It is the most profitable and, as we know now, most secure form of energy.”

Ukraine has had laws in place since 2014 to promote a transition to renewable energy, both to lower dependence on Russian energy imports, with periods when electricity exports resumed to neighbors, and because it was profitable. But that transition still has a long way to go, and the war makes its prospects, like everything else about Ukraine’s future, murky.

In 2020, 12% of Ukraine’s electricity came from renewable sources — barely half the percentage for the European Union. Plans for the Tyligulska project call for 85 turbines producing up to 500 megawatts of electricity. That’s enough for 500,000 apartments — an impressive output for a wind farm, but less than 1% of the country’s prewar generating capacity.

After the Kremlin began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the need for new power sources became acute, prompting deliveries such as a mobile gas turbine power plant to bolster capacity. Russia has bombarded Ukraine’s power plants and cut off delivery of the natural gas that fueled some of them.

Russian occupation forces have seized a large part of the country’s power supply, and Russia has built power lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant in occupied territory, ensuring that its output does not reach territory still held by Ukraine. They hold the single largest generator, the 5,700-megawatt Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which has been damaged repeatedly in fighting and has stopped transmitting energy to the grid, with UN inspectors warning of mines at the site during recent visits. They also control 90% of Ukraine’s renewable energy plants, which are concentrated in the southeast.

The postwar recovery plans Ukraine has presented to supporters including the European Union, which it hopes to join, feature a major new commitment to clean energy, even as a controversial proposal on Ukraine’s nuclear plants continues to stir debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario EV Charging Network Delay highlights permitting hurdles, grid limitations, and public-private rollout challenges across 250 sites, as two-thirds of 475 chargers go live while full provincewide infrastructure deployment slips to fall.

Key Points

A provincial rollout setback where permitting and grid issues delay full activation of Ontario's 475 public EV chargers.

✅ Two-thirds of 475 chargers live by the initial deadline

✅ Remaining stations expected online by fall

✅ Delays tied to permits, site conditions, and grid capacity

The Ontario government admitted Wednesday that it will fall short of meeting its deadline this Friday of creating a network of 475 electric vehicle charging stations in 250 locations across the province, and it's blaming unforeseen problems for the delay.

"We know some of our partners have encountered difficulties around permitting and some of the technical aspects of having some of the chargers up and running, even as we work to make it easier to build EV charging stations across Ontario," said Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca.

Two-thirds of the network will be live on Friday with the rest of the stations expected to be up and running by fall, according to the Ministry of Transportation. 

"Each of our partners' individual charging stations are subject to different site conditions, land ownership, municipal permitting, electrical grid limitations, as seen in regions where EV infrastructure lags, and other factors which have influenced timelines," said Bob Nichols, senior media liaison officer for the Transportation Ministry, in a statement. 

Because the stations are located in various community centres, retail outlets and other public spaces, Del Duca said the government's public and private sector partners are facing challenges in obtaining permits but are "motivated to get it right."

Cara Clairman, president and CEO of Plug'n Drive, an organization dedicated to accelerating the rollout of electric vehicles, says she isn't concerned about the delay.

"It was a pretty aggressive timeline. The EV community is pretty happy with the fact that it is going to happen. It might be slightly delayed but I think overall the mood is positive," she said.

Clairman said there are now more than 10,000 electric vehicles in the province and that more growth is expected as Ontario's next EV wave emerges in the market. She doesn't believe the delay in the rollout of charging stations will deter anyone from purchasing electric vehicles, even amid EV shortages and wait times in some segments.

"It certainly does help to persuade new folks to get on board but I think since they know it is coming, I don't see it having a big impact." 

Horwath not surprised

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said she's not surprised the government didn't meet its target.

"You shouldn't be making these promises if you can't fulfil them, that's the bottom line," she said. "Let's be realistic with
what you're able to achieve."

Progressive Conservative transportation critic Michael Harris suggested the Liberals don't have their priorities straight when it comes to electric vehicles.

"I think the focus for Kathleen Wynne was handing out $14,000 rebates to owners of Teslas, while they really should have been focusing their time and energy on ensuring that the infrastructure for electric vehicles has actually been rolled out," Harris said.

Covering every corner

Del Duca said the ministry has seen "some fairly tremendous success" despite the delays but that there have been a few challenges in building a network that ranges across the province, even as N.L.'s first fast-charging network is touted as just the beginning elsewhere. 

"We definitely want to make sure we're building a network that covers every corner of Ontario. Yes, we have some challenges and we are slightly delayed," the minister said.

"We anticipate being able to provide more resources in the coming months to continue to deploy an even broader network of charging infrastructure, including in northern Ontario."

Del Duca said a map on the ministry's website showing where the charging stations are installed should be updated in the next few days.

Premier Wynne committed to building a charging network for electric vehicles across Ontario at the 2015 climate change talks in Paris.

The $20 million in funding for the charging stations comes from Ontario's $325 million Green Investment Fund, which supports projects that fight climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Scotland Green Recovery Strategy centers on renewable energy, onshore wind, energy efficiency, battery storage, hydrogen, and electric vehicles, alongside public transport and digital infrastructure, local manufacturing, and grid flexibility to decarbonize industry and communities.

Key Points

A plan to cut emissions by scaling renewables, efficiency, storage, and infrastructure for resilient, low-carbon growth.

✅ Prioritize energy efficiency retrofits in homes and workplaces

✅ Invest in battery storage, hydrogen, and EV charging networks

✅ Support local manufacturing and circular economy supply chains

THE “green recovery” joins the growing list of Covid-era political maxims, while green energy investment could drive recovery, suggesting a bright and environmentally sustainable post-pandemic future lies ahead.

The Prime Minister once again alluded to it recently when he expressed his ambition to see the UK become the “world leader in clean wind energy”. In his typically bombastic style, Boris Johnson declared that everything from our kettles to electric vehicles, with offshore wind energy central to that vision, will be powered by “breezes that blow around these islands” by the next decade.

These comments create a misleading impression about how we can achieve a green recovery, particularly as Covid-19 hit renewables and exposed systemic challenges. While wind turbines have a key role to play, they are just one part of a comprehensive solution requiring a far more in-depth focus on how and why we use energy. We must concentrate our efforts and resources on reducing our overall consumption and increasing energy capture.

This includes making significant energy efficiency improvements to the buildings where we live and work and grasping the lessons of lockdown, including proposals for a fossil fuel lockdown to accelerate climate action, to ensure we operate in a more effective and less environmentally-damaging fashion. Do we really want to return to a world where people commute daily half way across the country for work or fly to New York for a two-hour meeting?

Businesses will need to adapt to new ways of operating outwith the traditional nine-to-five working week to reduce congestion and pollution levels. To make this possible requires Government investment in critical areas such as public transport and digital infrastructure, alongside more pylons to strengthen the grid, across all parts of Scotland to decentralise the economy and enable more people to live and work outside the main cities.

A Government-supported green recovery must rest on making it financially viable for businesses to manufacture here to reduce our reliance on imported goods. This includes processing recycleable materials here rather than shipping them abroad. It also means using locally generated energy to support local jobs and industry. We miss a trick if Scotland simply becomes a power generator for the rest of the UK.

MOVING transport from fossil fuels to renewable fuels will require a step-change that also requires support across all levels. The increased use of electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells are all encouraging developments, but these will rely on investment in infrastructure throughout the country if we’re to achieve significant benefits to our environment and our economy.

This brings us to the role of onshore wind power; still the cheapest form of renewable energy, and a sector marked by wind growth despite Covid-19 around the world today. Repowering existing sites with newer and more efficient turbines will certainly increase capacity rapidly, but we must also invest into development projects that will further enhance the capacity and efficiency of existing equipment. This includes improving on the current practice of the National Grid paying operators to switch off wind turbines when excess electricity is produced and instead developing new and innovative means to capture this energy. Government-primed investment into battery storage could help ensure we achieve and further reduce our reliance on traditional, non-sustainable sources.

We need a level playing field so that all forms of energy are judged on their lifetime cost in terms of emissions as well as construction and decommissioning costs to ensure fiscal incentives are applied on a fairer basis.

Turning the maxim of a green recovery into reality will require more than extra wind turbines, and the UK's wind lessons underscore the importance of policy and scale. We need a significant investment and commitment from business and government to limit existing emissions and ensure we capture and use energy more efficiently.

Andy Drane is projects partner and head of renewables at law firm Davidson Chalmers Stewart.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Grid Decarbonization demands balancing renewables, reliability, and resilience with smart transmission, storage, siting, and demand response, leveraging digital asset management to modernize infrastructure while meeting climate goals and rising electricity consumption.

Key Points

Low-carbon power while maintaining reliability via renewables, storage, transmission, and digital operations.

✅ Siting wind and solar requires community engagement and environmental review

✅ Balance variable renewables with storage, flexible load, and firm capacity

✅ Modernize transmission and digitize asset data for reliable operations

Last week, over 13,000 energy and technology leaders arrived in Dallas for DISTRIBUTECH International to share knowledge, showcase new technology advancements, and discuss initiatives to prepare for the future of energy. Among the many topics discussed was the critical need to balance rising energy demands and environmental pressures while understanding why the grid isn't 100% renewable today alongside effective climate change solutions.

The most widespread source of energy consumption is electricity. According to The U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020 electricity consumption rates were roughly 3.8 trillion kWh - 13 times higher than in 1950. With our ever-increasing reliance on electricity, renewables' share of generation is also rising and this number is sure to grow exponentially in the coming years.

How can the US achieve meaningful decarbonization goals without sacrificing reliable and stable energy? Here are 4 of the biggest challenges and practical ways to meet them:

Siting New Solar and Wind Farms
Building renewable energy sources is more difficult than it seems. Scouting for sites is fraught with issues such as community opposition due to local aesthetics and clean energy's hidden costs around disruption to the environment and recreation.

NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) is an influential source of opposition. Local residents join together in an effort to prevent shore front views in wealthy coastal areas from obstruction, which are needed to support offshore wind farms. These farms can also negatively impact local fisheries, while outdoor sports and entertainment activities such as sailing, waterskiing, fishing, or swimming may be disrupted, which are equally opposed by NIMBY advocates.

Utilities must take these concerns into account when scouting for renewable energy sites.

Maintaining Consistent Availability of Generation Capacity
The capacity to generate consistent, reliable electricity is both a regional and nationwide concern.

Wind and solar farms depend on a consistent level of wind velocity and sunny periods, yet wind and solar could meet 80% of U.S. demand and regional concerns must be considered. For example, the southwestern United States is an ideal location for large commercial solar arrays. Areas in the north are more problematic since fall and winter days are shorter, reducing their ability to consistently generate energy. The Midwest is a prime location for wind-based generation since it experiences a consistent level of wind throughout the year.

Nighttime periods and cloudy days virtually eliminate solar farms as a consistent energy source while loss of available winds impacts the reliability of wind as a base load supply of energy generation.

Pivoting From Current Energy Usage Models
Over the last 20 years, utilities have been heavily involved with normalizing consumer energy consumption curves, pursuing grid resilience strategies to manage variability. Due to the high cost of siting new fossil fuel facilities, building new electric grid interconnections, and the high commodity pricing for imported power, utilities were driven to modify their customers’ energy usage patterns.

These consumption regulating policies included:

• Time of use metering to entice customers to use high energy devices at night
• Installation of energy monitoring devices on high use customer equipment to enable the utility to reduce energy demand during peak use periods
• Charging electric vehicles overnight

With fundamental changes occurring in how energy is generated, the availability of renewable power during low or no-sun periods and lower wind levels will require utilities to alter their energy consumption models.

Utilizing Government Support of New Electric Infrastructure
With the proposed government infusion of funds, including a rule to boost renewable transmission, to build and modernize infrastructures, utility leaders will be ideally positioned to drastically improve the reliability of the US electric grid.

Utilities will be involved in aggressive transmission line building projects to ensure the effective distribution of energy across multiple state lines, aligning with the U.S. grid overhaul for renewables underway today. This expansive build out of the US transmission and distribution system will create a dramatic increase in the need to accurately document the location and details of the new utility assets for current tracking and future analysis needs.

Energy leaders must seek advanced technology to provide them with solutions for precisely this purpose. Manual, paper-based field data collection must be replaced with digital workflows which automate and simplify asset data capture and analysis. Continued reliance on manual methods will cause them to lag behind the industry and impede their ability to support renewable energy for the modern era.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Clean Hydrogen Hubs aim to scale production, storage, transport, and use as DOE and the Biden administration fund regional projects under the infrastructure law, blending green and blue hydrogen, carbon capture, renewables, and pipelines.

Key Points

Federally funded regional projects to make, move, and use low-carbon hydrogen via green, blue, and pink routes.

✅ $7B DOE funding via infrastructure law

✅ Mix of green, blue, pink hydrogen pathways

✅ Targets 10M metric tons annually by 2030

New details are emerging about the Biden administration’s landmark plans to build out a U.S. clean hydrogen industry.

On Friday, the Department of Energy named the seven winners of $7 billion in federal funds to establish regional hydrogen hubs. The hubs — funded through the infrastructure law — are part of the administration’s efforts to jump-start an industry it sees as key to achieving climate goals like the goal of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 set by the administration. The aim is to demonstrate everything from the production and storage of hydrogen to its transport and consumption.

“All across the country, from coast to coast, in the heartland, we’re building a clean energy future here in America, not somewhere else,” President Joe Biden said while announcing the hubs in Philadelphia.

From 79 initial proposals, DOE chose the following: the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub, Appalachian Hydrogen Hub, California Hydrogen Hub, Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, Heartland Hydrogen Hub, Midwest Hydrogen Hub and Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub.

Many of the winning proposals are backed by state government leaders and industry partners, and by Southeast cities that have ramped up clean energy purchases in recent years as well. The Midwest hub, for example, is a coalition of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan — supported by politicians like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), as well as such companies as Air Liquide, Ameren Illinois and Atlas Agro. The mid-Atlantic hub is supported by Democratic members of Congress representing the region, including Delaware Sens. Chris Coons and Tom Carper and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester.

The administration hopes the hubs will produce 10 million metric tons of “clean” hydrogen annually by 2030. But much about the projects remains unknown — including how trends like cheap batteries for solar could affect clean power supply — and dependent on negotiations with DOE.

A win for ‘blue’ hydrogen?
Nearly all hydrogen created in the U.S. today is extracted from natural gas through steam methane reformation. The emissions-intensive process produces what is known as “grey” hydrogen — or “blue” hydrogen when combined with carbon capture and storage.

Four recipients — the Appalachian, Gulf Coast, Heartland and Midwest hydrogen hubs — include blue hydrogen in their plans, though the infrastructure law only mandated one.

That has drawn the ire of environmentalists, who argue blue hydrogen is not emissions-free, partly because of the potential for methane leaks during the production process.

“This is worse than expected,” Clean Energy Group President Seth Mullendore said after the recipients were announced Friday. “The fact that more than half the hubs will be using fossil gas is outrageous.”

Critics have also pointed out that many of the industry partners backing the hub projects include oil and gas companies. The coalitions are a mix of private-sector groups — often including renewable energy developers — and government stakeholders. Proposals have also looped in universities, utilities, environmental groups, community organizations, labor unions and tribal nations, among others.

“The massive build out of hydrogen infrastructure is little more than an industry ploy to rebrand fracked gas,” said Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh in a statement Friday. “In a moment when every political decision that we make must reject fossil expansion, the Biden administration is going in the opposite direction.”

The White House has emphasized that roughly two-thirds of the $7 billion pot is “associated” with the production of “green” hydrogen, which uses electricity from renewable sources. Two of the chosen proposals — in California and the Pacific Northwest — are making green hydrogen their focus, reflecting advances such as offshore green hydrogen being pursued by industry leaders, while three other hubs plan to include green hydrogen alongside hydrogen made with natural gas (blue) or nuclear energy (pink).

Many hubs plan to use several methods for hydrogen production, and globally, projects like Brazil's green hydrogen plant highlight the scale of investment, but the exact mix may change depending on which projects make it through the DOE negotiations process. The Midwest hub, for example, told E&E News it’s pursuing an “all-of-the-above” strategy and has projects for green, blue and “pink” hydrogen. The mid-Atlantic hub in southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey will also generate hydrogen with nuclear reactors.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has described clean hydrogen as a fresh business opportunity, especially for the natural gas industry, which has supported the concept of sending hydrogen to market through its pipeline network. Lawmakers like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — who said the Appalachian hub will make West Virginia the “new epicenter of hydrogen” — have pushed for continuing to use natural gas to make hydrogen in his state.

“Natural gas utilities are committed to exploring all options for emissions reduction as demonstrated by the 39 hydrogen pilot projects already underway and are eager to participate in a number of the hubs,” said American Gas Association President and CEO Karen Harbert in a statement Friday.

Green hydrogen also has faced criticism. Some groups argue that the renewable resources needed to produce green hydrogen are limited, even with sources such as wind, solar and hydropower technology, so funding should be reserved for applications that cannot be easily electrified, mostly industrial processes. There also is uncertainty about how the Treasury Department will handle hydrogen made from grid electricity — which can include power from fossil fuel plants — in its upcoming guidance on the first-ever tax credit for clean hydrogen production.

“Even the cleanest forms of hydrogen present serious problems,” Walsh said. “As groundwater sources are drying up across the country, there is no reason to waste precious drinking water resources on hydrogen when there are cheaper, cleaner energy sources that can facilitate a real transition off fossil fuels.”

But Angelina Galiteva, CEO of the hub in drought-prone California, said hydrogen will enable the state “to increase renewable penetration to reach all corners of the economy,” noting parallel initiatives such as Dubai's solar hydrogen plans that illustrate the potential.

“Transitioning to renewable clean hydrogen will pose significantly less stress on water resources than remaining on the current fossil path,” she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV Battery Manufacturing Emissions debunk viral claims with lifecycle analysis, showing lithium-ion production CO2 depends on grid mix and is offset by zero tailpipe emissions and renewable-energy charging over typical vehicle miles.

Key Points

EV lithium-ion pack production varies by grid mix; ~1-2 years of driving, then offset by zero tailpipe emissions.

✅ Battery CO2 depends on electricity mix and factory efficiency.

✅ 75 kWh pack ~4.5-7.5 t CO2; not equal to 8 years of driving.

✅ Lifecycle analysis: EVs cut GHG vs gas, especially with renewables.

Electric vehicles are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline powered cars, but one Facebook post claims that the benefits are overblown, despite fact-checks of charging math to the contrary, and the vehicles are much more harmful to the planet than people assume.

A cartoon posted to Facebook on April 29, amid signs the EV era is arriving in many markets, shows a car in one panel with "diesel" written on the side and the driver thinking "I feel so dirty." In another panel, a car has "electric" written on its side with the driver thinking "I feel so clean."

However, the electric vehicle is shown connected to what appears to be a factory that’s blowing dark smoke into the air.

Below the cartoon is a caption that claims "manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of CO2 as running a petrol car for eight years."

This isn’t a new line of criticism against electric vehicles, and reflects ongoing opinion on the EV revolution in the media. Similar Facebook posts have taken aim at the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing of electric cars — specifically the batteries — to make the case that zero emissions vehicles aren’t necessarily clean.

Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops.

Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine.

How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made — or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated, and national electricity profiles such as Canada's 2019 mix help illustrate regional differences — according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank.

Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said.

If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years — but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its "higher carbon electricity mix." The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla’s Nevada factory uses some solar energy. 

"More than half the emissions associated with manufacturing the battery are associated with electricity use," Hausfather said in an email to PolitiFact. "So, as the electricity grid decarbonizes, emissions associated with battery production will decline. The same is not true for sedan tailpipe emissions."

The Facebook post does not mention the electricity needs and CO2 impact of factories that build gasoline or diesel cars and their components. 

Another thing the Facebook post omits is that the CO2 emitted in the production of the battery can be offset over a short time in an electric car by the lack of tailpipe emissions when it’s in operation. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists found in a 2015 report that taking into account electricity sources for charging, which have become greener in all states since then, an electric vehicle ends up reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared with a similar size gas-powered car.

A midsize vehicle completely negates the carbon dioxide its production emits by the time it travels 4,900 miles, according to the report. For full size cars, it takes 19,000 miles of driving.

The U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy also looked at the life cycle of electric vehicles — which includes a car’s production, use and disposal — and concluded they produce less greenhouse gases and smog than gasoline-powered vehicles, a conclusion consistent with independent analyses from consumer and energy groups.

The agency also found drivers could further lower CO2 emissions by charging with power generated by a renewable energy source, and drivers can also save money in the long run with EV ownership. 

Our ruling
A cartoon shared on Facebook claims the carbon dioxide emitted from the production of one electric car battery is the equivalent to driving a gas-powered vehicle for eight years.

The production of lithium-ion batteries for electric cars emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide, but nowhere near the level claimed in the cartoon. The emissions from battery production are equivalent to driving a gasoline car for one or two years, depending on where it’s produced, and those emissions are effectively offset over time by the lack of tailpipe emissions when the car is on the road. 

We rate this claim Mostly False.    

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News