Partnership to explore offshore wind-hydrokinetic power

Hurricane Ida New Orleans Infrastructure faced a split outcome: levees and pumps protected against storm surge, while the power grid collapsed as transmission lines failed, prompting large-scale restoration efforts across Louisiana and Mississippi.

Key Points

It summarizes Ida's impact: levees and pumps held, but the power grid failed, causing outages and slow restoration.

✅ Levees and pumps mitigated flooding and storm surge impacts.

✅ All transmission lines failed, crippling the power grid.

✅ Crews and drones assess damage; restoration may take weeks.

Infrastructure in the city of New Orleans turned in a mixed performance against the fury of Hurricane Ida, with the levees and pumps warding off catastrophic flooding even as the electrical grid, part of the broader Louisiana power grid, failed spectacularly.

Ida’s high winds, measuring 150 miles (240 kilometers) an hour at landfall, took out all eight transmissions lines that deliver power into New Orleans, ripped power poles in half and crumpled at least one steel transmission tower into a twisted metal heap, knocking out electricity to all of the city. A total of more than 1.2 million homes and businesses in Louisiana and Mississippi lost power. While about 90,000 customers were reconnected by Monday afternoon, many could face days without electricity, and frustration can mount as seen during the Houston outage after major storms.

In contrast, the New Orleans area’s elaborate flood defenses seem to have held up, a vindication of the Army Corps of Engineers’ $14.5 billion project to rebuild levees, flood gates and pumps in the wake of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While there were reports of scattered deaths tied to Ida, the city escaped the kind of flooding that destroyed entire neighborhoods in Katrina’s wake, left parts of the city uninhabitable for months and claimed 1,800 lives. 

“The situation in New Orleans, as bad as it is today with the power, could be so much worse,” Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards said Monday on the Today Show, praising the levee system’s performance. “All you have to do is go back 16 years to get a glimpse of what that would have been like.”

While the levees’ resiliency is no doubt due to the rebuilding effort that followed Katrina, the starkly different outcomes also stems from the storms’ different characteristics. Katrina slammed the coast with a 30-foot storm surge of ocean water, while preliminary estimates from Ida put its surge far lower. 

Ida’s winds, however, were stronger than Katrina’s, and that’s what ultimately took out so many power lines, a dynamic that also saw Texas utilities struggle during Harvey. Deanna Rodriguez, the chief executive officer of power provider Entergy New Orleans, declined to comment on when service would be restored, saying the company was using helicopters and drones to help assess the damage.

Michael Webber, an energy and engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin, estimated power restoration will take days and possibly weeks, a pattern seen in Florida restoration timelines after major hurricanes, based on the initial damage reports from the storm. More than 25,000 workers from at least 32 states and Washington are mobilized to assist with power restoration efforts, similar to FPL's massive response after Irma, according to the Edison Electric Institute.

“The question is, how long will it take to rebuild these lines,” Webber said. The utilities will first need to complete their damage assessments before they can get a sense of repair timelines, a step that Gulf Power crews have highlighted in past recoveries, he said. “You can imagine that will take days at least, possibly weeks.”

The loss of electricity will have other affects as well, and even though grid resilience during the pandemic was strong, local systems face immediate constraints. Sewer substations, for example, need electricity to keep wastewater moving, said Ghassan Korban, executive director of the New Orleans Sewerage & Water Board. The storm knocked out power to about 80 of the city’s 84 pumping stations, he said at a Monday press conference. “Without electricity, wastewater backs up and can cause overflows,” he said, adding that residents should conserve water to lessen stress on the system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Summer Power Grid Reliability and Climate Risk drives urgent planning as extreme heat, peak demand, drought, and aging infrastructure strain ERCOT, NERC regions, risking outages without renewables integration and climate-informed grid modeling.

Key Points

Assessment of how extreme weather and demand stress the US grid, informing climate-smart planning to reduce outages.

✅ Many operators rely on historical weather, not climate projections

✅ NERC flags elevated blackout risk amid extreme heat and drought

✅ Renewables and storage can boost capacity and cut emissions

As heat ramps up ahead of what forecasters say will be a hotter than normal summer, electricity experts and officials are warning that states may not have enough power to meet demand in the coming months. And many of the nation's grid operators are also not taking climate change into account in their planning, despite available grid resilience guidance that could inform upgrades, even as extreme weather becomes more frequent and more severe.

Power operators in the Central US, in their summer readiness report, have already predicted "insufficient firm resources to cover summer peak forecasts." That assessment accounted for historical weather and the latest NOAA outlook that projects for more extreme weather this summer.

But energy experts say that some power grid operators are not considering how the climate crisis is changing our weather — including more frequent extreme events — and that is a problem if the intent is to build a reliable power grid while accelerating investing in carbon-free electricity across markets.

"The reality is the electricity system is old and a lot of the infrastructure was built before we started thinking about climate change," said Romany Webb, a researcher at Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "It's not designed to withstand the impacts of climate change."

Webb says many power grid operators use historical weather to make investment decisions, rather than the more dire climate projections, simply because they want to avoid the possibility of financial loss, even as climate-related credit risks for nuclear plants are being flagged, for investing in what might happen versus what has already happened. She said it's the wrong approach and it makes the grid vulnerable.

"We have seen a reluctance on the part of many utilities to factor climate change into their planning processes because they say the science around climate change is too uncertain," Webb said. "The reality is we know climate change is happening, we know the impact it has in terms of more severe heatwaves, hurricanes, drought, with recent hydropower constraints in British Columbia illustrating the risks, and we know that all of those things affect the electricity system so ignoring those impacts just makes the problems worse."

An early heatwave knocked six power plants offline in Texas earlier this month. Residents were asked to limit electricity use, keeping thermostats at 78 degrees or higher and, as extreme heat boosts electricity bills for consumers, avoid using large appliances at peak times. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, in its seasonal reliability report, said the state's power grid is prepared for the summer and has "sufficient" power for "normal" summer conditions, based on average weather from 2006 to 2020.

But NOAA's recently released summer outlook forecasts above average temperatures for every county in the nation.

"We are continuing to design and site facilities based on historical weather patterns that we know in the age of climate change are not a good proxy for future conditions," Webb said.

When asked if the agency is creating a blind spot for itself by not accounting for extreme weather predictions, an ERCOT spokesperson said the report "uses a scenario approach to illustrate a range of resource adequacy outcomes based on extreme system conditions, including some extreme weather scenarios."

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC — a regulating authority that oversees the health of the nation's electrical infrastructure — has a less optimistic projection.

In a recent seasonal reliability report, NERC placed Texas at "elevated risk" for blackouts this summer. It also reported that while much of the nation will have adequate electricity this summer, several markets are at risk of energy emergencies.

California grid operators, who recently avoided widespread rolling blackouts as heat strained the grid, in its summer reliability report also based its readiness analysis on "the most recent 20 years of historical weather data." The report also notes the assessment "does not fully reflect more extreme climate induced load and supply uncertainties."

Compounding the US power grid's supply and demand problem is drought: NERC says there's been a 2% loss of reliable hydropower from the nation's power-producing dams. Add to that the rapid retirement of many coal power plants — all while nearly everything from toothbrushes to cars are now electrified. Energy experts say adding more renewables into the mix will have the dual impact of cutting climate change inducing greenhouse gas emissions but also increasing the nation's power supply, aligning with efforts such as California's 100% carbon-free mandate that aim to speed the transition.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Rising Electricity Prices are driven by inflation, climate change, and the clean energy transition, affecting energy bills, grid resilience, and supply. Renewables, storage, and infrastructure upgrades shape costs, volatility, and long-term sustainability.

Key Points

Rising electricity prices stem from inflation, climate risk, and costs of integrating clean energy and storage into modern grids.

✅ Inflation raises fuel, materials, and labor costs for utilities

✅ Extreme weather damages infrastructure and strains peak demand

✅ Clean energy rollout needs storage, backup, and grid upgrades

In recent months, consumers have been grappling with a concerning trend: rising electricity prices across the country. This increase is not merely a fluctuation but a complex issue shaped by a confluence of factors including inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the current energy landscape and preparing for its future.

Inflation and Its Impact on Energy Costs

Inflation, the economic phenomenon of rising prices across various sectors, has significantly impacted the cost of living, including electricity and natural gas prices for households. As the price of goods and services increases, so too does the cost of producing and delivering electricity. Energy production relies heavily on raw materials, such as metals and fuels, whose prices have surged in recent years. For instance, the costs associated with mining, transporting, and refining these materials have risen, thereby increasing the operational expenses for power plants.

Moreover, inflation affects labor costs, as wages often need to keep pace with the rising cost of living. As utility companies face higher expenses for both materials and labor, these costs are inevitably passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills.

Climate Change and Energy Supply Disruptions

Climate change also plays a significant role in driving up electricity prices. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, and floods, have become more frequent and severe due to climate change. These events disrupt energy production and distribution by damaging infrastructure, impeding transportation, and affecting the availability of resources.

For example, hurricanes can knock out power plants and damage transmission lines, leading to shortages and higher costs. During periods of extreme summer heat across many regions, heatwaves can strain the power grid as increased demand for air conditioning pushes the system to its limits. Such disruptions not only lead to higher immediate costs but also necessitate costly repairs and infrastructure upgrades.

Additionally, the increasing frequency of natural disasters forces utilities to invest in more resilient infrastructure, as many utilities spend more on delivery to harden grids and reduce outages, which adds to overall costs. These investments, while necessary for long-term reliability, contribute to short-term price increases for consumers.

The Transition to Clean Energy

The shift towards clean energy is another pivotal factor influencing electricity prices. While renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro power are crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change, their integration into the existing grid presents challenges.

Renewable energy infrastructure requires substantial initial investment. The construction of wind farms, solar panels, and the associated grid improvements involve significant capital expenditure. These upfront costs are often reflected in electricity prices. Moreover, renewable energy sources can be intermittent, meaning they do not always produce electricity at times of high demand. This intermittency necessitates the development of energy storage solutions and backup systems, which further adds to the costs.

Utilities are also transitioning from fossil fuel-based energy production to cleaner alternatives, a process that involves both technological and operational shifts and intersects with the broader energy crisis impacts on electricity, gas, and EVs nationwide. These changes can temporarily increase costs as utilities phase out old systems and implement new ones. While the long-term benefits of cleaner energy include environmental sustainability and potentially lower operating costs, the transition period can be financially burdensome for consumers.

The Path Forward

Addressing rising electricity prices requires a multifaceted approach. Policymakers must balance the need for immediate relief, as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills, with the long-term goals of sustainability and resilience. Investments in energy efficiency can help reduce overall demand and ease pressure on the grid. Expanding and modernizing energy infrastructure to accommodate renewable sources can also mitigate price volatility.

Additionally, efforts to mitigate climate change through improved resilience and adaptive measures can reduce the frequency and impact of extreme weather events, thereby stabilizing energy costs.

Consumer education is vital in this process. Understanding the factors driving electricity prices can empower individuals to make informed decisions about energy consumption and conservation. Furthermore, exploring energy-efficient appliances and practices can help manage costs in the face of rising prices.

In summary, the rising cost of electricity is a multifaceted issue influenced by inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy, and recent developments show Germany's rising energy costs in the coming year. While these factors pose significant challenges, they also offer opportunities for innovation and improvement in how we produce, distribute, and consume energy. By addressing these issues with a balanced approach, it is possible to navigate the complexities of rising electricity prices while working towards a more sustainable and resilient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Automaker EV Fast-Charging Network will deploy 30,000 DC fast chargers across US and Canada, supporting CCS and NACS, integrating Tesla compatibility, easing range anxiety, and expanding highway and urban charging infrastructure with amenities and uptime.

Key Points

A $1B joint venture by seven automakers to build 30,000 DC fast chargers with CCS and NACS across the US and Canada.

✅ 30,000 DC fast chargers by 2030 across US and Canada

✅ Supports CCS and NACS; Tesla compatibility planned

✅ Launching mid-2024; focus on highways, urban hubs, amenities

Seven major automakers announced a plan on Wednesday to nearly double the number of fast chargers in the United States in an effort to address one of the main reasons that people hesitate to buy electric cars, even as the age of electric cars accelerates.

The carmakers — BMW Group, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz Group and Stellantis — will initially invest at least $1 billion in a joint venture that will build 30,000 charging ports on major highways and other locations in the United States and Canada.

The United States and Canada have about 36,000 fast chargers — those that can replenish a drained battery in 30 minutes or less. In some sparsely populated areas, such chargers can be hundreds of miles apart. Surveys show that fear about not being able to find a charger during longer journeys is a major reason that some car buyers are reluctant to buy electric vehicles.

Sales of electric vehicles have risen quickly in the United States as the market hits an inflection point, but there are signs that demand is softening. As a result, Tesla, Ford and other carmakers have cut prices in recent months and are offering incentives. Popular models that had long waiting lists last year are now available in a few days or weeks.

Major carmakers are investing billions of dollars to manufacture electric vehicles and batteries and to establish supplier networks. Having staked their futures on the technology, they have a strong incentive to ensure that electric vehicles catch on with car buyers, even as gas-electric hybrids help bridge the transition.

The chargers installed by the joint venture will have plugs designed for the connections used by most carmakers other than Tesla, as well as the standard developed by Tesla, amid fights for control over charging, that Ford, G.M. and other companies have said they intend to switch to in 2025.

“The better experience people have, the faster E.V. adoption will grow,” Mary T. Barra, the chief executive of General Motors, said in a statement.

The seven automakers plan to formalize the joint venture and announce its name by the end of the year, Chris Martin, a Honda spokesman, said. The first chargers will begin operating around the middle of 2024, he said, with all 30,000 in place by the end of the decade.

The joint venture is open to adding other partners, he said. Among major automakers, Ford was a notable absence from the announcement on Wednesday. The company said in a statement on Wednesday that it would continue to iThe partnership also does not include Volkswagen. The company is a majority shareholder of Electrify America, one of the largest fast-charging providers.

Tesla accounts for more than half the fast chargers in the United States and has said it will open its networks to other car brands, though, so far, it has only made fewer than 100 ports available. Owners of Ford and G.M. vehicles, among others, will be able to connect to 12,000 Tesla fast chargers using an adapter beginning next year. In 2025, Ford and G.M. plan to make models designed to take the Tesla plug without an adapter.

The decision by the seven carmakers to form the joint venture is an indication that they do not intend to rely solely on Tesla, which dominates sales of electric vehicles, for charging.

The chargers being built by the joint venture will be concentrated in urban areas and along major highways, especially those used most heavily by vacationers and other travelers, the companies said in a joint statement. Charging stations will be close to restrooms, restaurants and other amenities. The partners said they would try to take advantage of federal and state funds available for charging infrastructure amid questions about whether the U.S. has the power to charge it at scale.

Most electric vehicle owners charge at home and rarely need to use public chargers. Home chargers typically replenish batteries overnight. Most public chargers, about 125,000 in the United States and Canada, also operate relatively slowly — taking four to 10 hours to do the job.nvest in its own network, which allows Ford owners to charge from a variety of providers with one mobile phone app.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News