Rhode Island issues its plan to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030

Wind farm reliability services now compete in wholesale markets, as FERC and NERC endorse market-based solutions that reward performance, bolster grid resilience, and compensate ancillary services like frequency regulation, voltage support, and spinning reserve.

Key Points

Grid support from wind plants, including frequency, voltage, ramping, and inertial response via advanced controls.

✅ Enabled by advanced controls and inverter-based technology

✅ Compete in market-based mechanisms for ancillary services

✅ Support frequency, voltage, reserves; enhance grid resilience

American Wind Energy Association CEO Tom Kiernan has explained to a congressional testimony that wind farms can now compete, as renewables approach market majority, to provide essential electric reliability services. 

Mr Kiernan appeared before the US Congress House Energy and Commerce Committee where he said that, thanks to technological advances, wind farms are now competitive with other energy technologies with regard to reliability and resiliency. He added that grid reliability and resilience are goals that everyone can support and that efforts underway at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and by market operators are rightly focused on market-based solutions to better compensate generators for providing those essential services.

AWEA strongly agreed with other witnesses on the panel who endorsed market-based solutions in their submitted testimony, including the American Petroleum Institute, Solar Energy Industries Association, Energy Storage Association, Natural Resources Defence Council, National Hydropower Association, and others. However, AWEA is concerned that the Department of Energy’s recent proposal to provide payments to specific resources based on arbitrary requirements is anti-competitive, and threatens to undermine electricity markets that are bolstering reliability and saving consumers billions of dollars per year.

“We support the objective of maintaining a reliable and resilient grid which is best achieved through free and open markets, with a focus on needed reliability services – not sources – and a programme to promote transmission infrastructure.”

Kiernan outlined several major policy recommendations in his testimony, including reliance on competitive markets that reward performance to ensure affordable and reliable electricity, a focus on reliability needs rather than generation sources and the promotion of transmission infrastructure investment to improve resilience and allow consumers greater access to all low-cost forms of energy.

The CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has recently testified that the state of reliability in North America remains strong and the trend line shows continuing improvement year over year. Technological advances and innovation by over 100,000 US wind workers enable wind farms today to provide the grid reliability services traditionally provided by conventional power plants. NERC’s CEO emphasised in its testimony at last month’s hearing that “variable resources significantly diversify the generation portfolio and can contribute to reliability and resilience in important ways.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hydrogen vs Battery-Electric Vehicles compare FCEV and BEV tech for range, charging and refueling, zero-emissions, infrastructure in Canada, highlighting urban commuting, heavy-duty use, fast 5-minute fills, 30-minute fast charging, and renewable hydrogen from surplus wind.

Key Points

Hydrogen FCEVs suit long range and heavy-duty use; BEVs excel in urban commutes with overnight charging.

✅ FCEVs refuel in about 5 minutes; ideal for long range and heavy duty.

✅ BEVs fit urban commuting with home or night charging; fewer stops.

✅ Hydrogen enables energy storage from surplus wind and hydro power.

We’re constantly hearing that battery-electric cars are the future, as automakers pursue Canada-U.S. collaboration on EVs across the industry, so I was surprised to see that companies like Toyota, Honda and Hyundai are making hydrogen fuel-cell cars. Which technology is better? Could hydrogen still win? – Pete, Kingston

They’re both in their electric youth, relatively speaking, but the ultimate winner in the race between hydrogen and battery electric will likely be both.

“It’s not really a competition – they’ll both co-exist and there will also be plug-in hydrogen hybrids,” said Walter Merida, director of the Clean Energy Research Centre at the University of British Columbia. “Battery-electric vehicles [BEVs] are better for an urban environment where you have time to recharge and fuel-cell electric vehicles [FCEVs] are better-suited for long range and heavy duty.”

Last year, there were 9,840 BEVs sold in Canada, up from 5,130 the year before. If you include plug-in hybrids, the number sold in 2017 grows to 18,560, though many buyers now face EV shortages and wait times amid high gasoline prices.

And how many hydrogen vehicles were sold in Canada last year?

#google#

None – although Hyundai leased out about a half-dozen hydrogen Tucsons in British Columbia for $599 a month, which included fuel from Powertech labs in Surrey.

In January, Toyota announced it will be selling the Mirai in Quebec later this year. And Hyundai said it will offer about 25 Nexos for sale.

“It’s chicken or egg,” said Michael Fowler, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Waterloo. “Car manufacturers won’t release cars into the market unless there’s a refuelling station and companies won’t build a refuelling station unless there are cars to fuel.”

Right now, there are no retail hydrogen refuelling stations in Canada. While there are plans under way to add stations in B.C., Ontario and Quebec, we’re still behind Japan, Europe and California, though experts outline how Canada can capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot to accelerate progress.

“In 2007, Ontario had a hydrogen strategy and they were starting to develop hydrogen vehicles and they dropped that in favour of the Green Energy Act and it was a complete disaster,” Fowler said. “The reality is the government of the day listened to the wrong people.”

It’s tough to pinpoint a single reason why governments focused on building charging stations instead of hydrogen stations, Merida said.

“It’s ironic, you know – the fuel cell was invented in Vancouver. Geoffrey Ballard was one of the pioneers of this technology,” Merida said. “And for a while, Canada was a global leader, but eventually government programs were discontinued and that was very disruptive to the sector.”

HYDROGEN FOR THE MASSES?

While we tend to think of BEVs when we think of electric cars, fuel-cell vehicles are electric, too; the hydrogen passes through a fuel cell stack, where it mixes with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce an electric current.

That current powers electric motors to drive the wheels and extra energy goes to a battery pack that’s used to boost acceleration (it’s also charged by regenerative braking).

Except for water that drips out of the hydrogen car, they’re both zero-emission on the road.

But a big advantage for hydrogen is that, if you can find a station, you can pull up to a pump and fill up in five minutes or less – the same way we do now at nearly 12,000 gas stations.

Compare that with fast-charging stations that can charge a battery to 80 per cent in 30 minutes – each station only handles one car at a time. What if you get there and it’s busy – or broken? And right now, there are only 139 of them in Canada.

And at slower, Level 2 stations, cars have to be plugged in for hours to recharge.

In a 2018 KPMG survey of auto executives, 55 per cent said that moves to switch entirely to pure battery-electric vehicles will fail because there won’t be enough charging stations, and some critics argue the 2035 EV mandate is delusional given infrastructure constraints.

“Ontario just invested $20-million in public charging stations and that’s going to service 100 or 200 cars a day,” Fowler said. “If you were to invest that in hydrogen stations, you’d be able to service thousands of cars a day.”

And when you do charge at a station, you might not be using clean power, as 18% of Canada’s 2019 electricity came from fossil fuels according to national data, Fowler said.

“At least in Ontario, in order to charge at a public station during the day, you have to rev up a natural-gas plant somewhere,” Fowler said. “So the only way you’re getting zero emissions is when you can charge at night using excess nuclear, hydro or wind that’s not being used.”

But hydrogen can be made when surplus green energy is stored, Fowler said.

“In Ontario, we have lots of wind in the spring and the fall, when we don’t need the electricity,” he said.

And eventually, you’ll be able to connect your fuel-cell vehicle to the grid and sell the power it produces, Merida said.

“The amount of power generation you have in these moving platforms is quite significant,” Merida said.

There are other strikes against battery-electric, including reduced range by 30 per cent or more in the winter and the need to upgrade infrastructure such as electrical transformers so they can handle more than just a handful of cars on each street charging at night, Fowler said.

In that KPMG survey, executives predicted a nearly equal split between BEVs, FCEVs, hybrids and gasoline engines by 2040.

“Battery-electric vehicles will serve a certain niche – they’ll be small commuter vehicles in certain cities,” Fowler said. “But for the way we use cars today – the family car, the suburban car, buses and probably trucks – it will be the fuel cell.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

US Renewable Energy Capacity 2023 leads new utility-scale additions, with solar, wind, and battery storage surging; EIA data cite tax incentives, lower costs, and smart grid upgrades driving grid reliability and decarbonization.

Key Points

In 2023, renewables dominate new US utility-scale capacity: 54% solar, 7.1 GW wind, 8.6 GW battery storage, per EIA.

✅ 54% of 2023 US additions are solar, a record year

✅ 7.1 GW wind and 8.6 GW batteries expand grid resources

✅ Storage, smart grids, incentives boost reliability and growth

Wind, solar, and batteries make up 82% of 2023’s expected new utility-scale power capacity in the US, highlighting wind power's surge alongside solar and storage, according to the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) “Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory.”

As of January 2023, the US was operating 73.5 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale solar capacity, which aligns with rising solar generation trends across the US – about 6% of the country’s total.

But solar makes up just over half of new US generating capacity expected to come online in 2023, supported by favourable government plans across key markets. And if it all goes as expected, it will be the most solar capacity added in a single year in the US. It will also be the first year that more than half of US capacity additions are solar, underscoring solar's No. 3 renewable ranking in the U.S. mix.

As of January 2023, 141.3 GW of wind capacity was operating in the US, reflecting wind's status as the most-used renewable nationwide – about 12% of the US total. Another 7.1 GW are planned for 2023. Tax incentives, lower wind turbine construction costs, and new renewable energy targets are spurring the growth. 

And developers also plan to add 8.6 GW of battery storage power capacity to the grid this year, supporting record solar and storage buildouts across the market, and that’s going to double total US battery power capacity.

However, differences in the amount of electricity that different types of power plants can produce mean that wind and solar made up about 17% of the US’s utility-scale capacity in 2021, but produced 12% of electricity, even as renewables surpassed coal nationally in 2022. Solutions such as energy storage, smart grids, and infrastructure development will help bridge that gap.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Electricity Alliance Canada champions clean power, electrification, and net-zero, uniting renewable energy, hydropower, nuclear, wind, and solar to decarbonize Canada with sustainable, reliable, affordable electricity across sectors by 2050, economywide growth.

Key Points

A national coalition advancing clean power and electrification to help achieve Canada's net-zero by 2050.

✅ Coalition of six Canadian electricity associations

✅ Promotes electrification and clean, reliable power

✅ Aims net-zero by 2050, coal phase-out by 2030

Six of Canada’s leading electricity associations have created a coalition to promote clean power’s role, amid a looming power challenge for the country, in a sustainable energy future.

The Electricity Alliance Canada’s mandate is to enable, promote and advocate for increased low or no-carbon electricity usage throughout the economy to help achieve the nation’s net-zero emissions target of 100 percent by 2050, with net-zero electricity regulations permitting some natural gas generation along the way.

The founding members are the Canadian Electricity Association, the Canadian Nuclear Association, the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, Electricity Human Resources Canada, Marine Renewables Canada, and WaterPower Canada, and they aim to incorporate lessons from Europe's power crisis as collaboration advances.

“Electricity will power Canada’s energy transition and create many new well-paying jobs,” reads the joint statement by the six entities. “We are pleased to announce this enhanced collaboration to advance discussion and implement strategies that promote greater electrification in a way that is sustainable, reliable and affordable. Electricity Alliance Canada looks forward to working with governments and energy users to capture the full potential of electricity to contribute to Canada’s net-zero target.”

Canada is much further along than many nations when it comes decarbonizing its power generation sector, yet it is expected to miss 2035 clean electricity goals without accelerated efforts. More than 80 percent of its electricity mix is fueled by non-emitting hydroelectric and nuclear as well as wind, solar and marine renewable generation, according to the Alliance. By contrast, the U.S. portion of non-emitting electricity resources is closer to 40 percent or less.

The remainder of its coal-fired power plants are scheduled to be phased out by 2030, according to reports, though scrapping coal-fired electricity could be costly and ineffective according to one report.

Hydropower leads the way in Canada, with nearly 500 generating plant producing an average of 355 TWh per year, according to the Canadian Hydropower Association. Nuclear plants such as Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington station and Bruce Power also contribute massive-scale and carbon-free electricity capacity, as debates over Ontario's renewable future continue.

Observers note that clean, affordable electricity in Ontario should be a prominent election issue this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada EV Manufacturing Strategy catalyzes electric vehicles growth via batteries, mining, and supply chain localization, with Unifor deals, Ford and FCA retooling, and government incentives safeguarding jobs and competitiveness across the auto industry.

Key Points

A coordinated plan to scale EV assembly, batteries, and mining supply chains in Canada via union deals and incentives.

✅ Government-backed Ford and FCA retooling for EV models.

✅ Battery cell, module, and pack production localizes value.

✅ Mining-to-mobility links metals to the EV supply chain.

As of a month ago Canada was just a speck on the global EV manufacturing map. We couldn’t honestly claim to be in the global race to electrify the automotive sector, even as EV shortages and wait times signalled surging demand.

An analysis published earlier this year by the International Council on Clean Transportation and Pembina Institute found that while Canada ranked 12th globally in vehicle production, EV production was a miniscule 0.4 per cent of that total and well off the average of 2.3 per cent amongst auto producing nations.

As the report’s co-author Ben Sharpe noted, “Canada is a huge auto producer. But nobody is really shining a light on the fact that if Canada’s doesn’t quickly ramp up its EV production, the steady decline we’ve seen in auto manufacturing over the past 20 years is going to accelerate.”

National strategy
While the report received relatively scant attention outside industry circles, its thesis was not lost on the leadership of Unifor, the union representing Canadian autoworkers.

In an August op-ed, Unifor national president Jerry Dias laid out the table stakes: “Global automakers are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into electric vehicle investments, but no major programs are landing in Canada. Without a comprehensive national auto strategy, and active government engagement, the future is dim … securing our industry’s future requires a much bigger made-in-Canada style effort. An effort that government must lead.”

And then he got busy at the negotiating table.

The result? All of a sudden Canada is (or rather, will be) on the EV assembly map, just as the market hits an EV inflection point globally on adoption trends.

Late last month, contract negotiations between Unifor and Ford produced the Ford Oakville deal that will see $2 billion — including $590 million from the federal and Ontario governments ($295 million each) — invested towards production of five EV models in Oakville, Ont.

Three weeks later, Unifor reached a similar agreement with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles on a $1.5-billion investment, including retooling, to accommodate production of both a plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicle (including at least one additional model). 

Workforce implications
The primary motivation for Unifor in pushing for EVs in contract negotiations is, at minimum, preserving jobs — if not creating them. Unifor estimates that retooling the Ford plant in Oakville will save 3,000 of the 3,400 jobs there, contributing to Ontario's EV jobs boom as the transition accelerates. However, as VW CEO Herbert Diess has noted, “The reality is that building an electric car involves some 30 per cent less effort than one powered by an internal combustion engine.”

So, when it comes to the relationship between jobs and EVs, at first glance it might not seem to be a great news story. What exactly are the workforce implications?

To answer this question, and aid automakers and their suppliers in navigating the transition to EV production, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has done a study on the evolution of labour requirements along the automotive value chain. And the results, it turns out, are both illuminating and encouraging — so long as you look across the full value chain.

Common wisdom “inaccurate”
The study provides an in-depth unpacking of the similarities and differences between manufacturing an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle versus a battery EV (BEV), and in doing so it arrives at a surprising conclusion: “The common wisdom that BEVs are less labor intensive in assembly stages than traditional vehicles is inaccurate.” 

BCG’s analysis modeled how many labour hours were required to build an ICE vehicle versus a BEV, including the distribution of labour value across the automotive value chain.

While ICE vehicles require more labour associated with components, engine, motor and transmission assembly and installation, BEVs require the addition of battery manufacturing (cell production and module and battery pack assembly) and an increase in assembly-related labour. Meanwhile, labour requirements for press, body and paint shops don’t differ at all. Put that all together and labour requirements for BEVs are comparable to those of ICE vehicles when viewed across the full value chain.

Value chain shifting to parts suppliers
However, as BCG notes, this similarity not only masks, but even magnifies, a significant change that was already underway in the distribution of labour value across the value chain — an accelerating shift to parts suppliers.

This trend is a key reason why the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association launched Project Arrow earlier this year, and just unveiled the winner of the EV concept design that will ultimately become a full-build, 100 per cent Canadian-equipped zero-emission concept vehicle. The project is a showcase for Canadian automotive SMEs.

The bulk of the value shift is into battery cell manufacturing, which is dominated by Asian players. In light of this, both the EU and UK are working hard to devise strategies to secure battery cell manufacturing, including projects like a Niagara Region battery plant that signal momentum, and hence capture this value domestically. Canada must now do the same — and in the process, capitalize on the unique opportunity we have buried underground: the metals and minerals needed for batteries.

The federal government is well aware of this opportunity, which Minister of Industry, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains has coined “mines to mobility.” But we’re playing catch up, and the window to effectively position to capture this opportunity will close quickly.

Cooperation and coordination needed
As Unifor’s Dias noted in an interview with Electric Autonomy after the FCA deal, the scale of the opportunity extends beyond the assembly plants in Oakville and Windsor: “This is about putting workers back in our steel plants. This is about making batteries. This is about saying to aluminum workers in Quebec and B.C. … to lithium workers in Quebec … cobalt workers in Northern Ontario, you’re going to be a part of the solution…It is a transformative time. … We’re on the cusp of leading globally for where this incredible industry is going.”

With their role in securing Ford’s EV production commitment, the federal and Ontario governments made clear that they understand the potential that EVs offer Canada, including how to capitalize on the U.S. auto sector's pivot as supply chains evolve, and their role in capitalizing on this opportunity.

But to ultimately succeed will require more than an open chequebook, it will take a coordinated industrial strategy that spans the full automotive value chain and extends beyond it into batteries and even mining, alongside Canada-U.S. collaboration to align supply chains. This will require effective cooperation and coordination between governments and across several industrial sectors and their associations.

Together they are Team Canada’s pit crew in the global EV race. How we fare will depend on how efficiently and effectively that crew works together. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric Vehicle Ownership Costs include lower maintenance, repair, and fuel expenses; Consumer Reports shows BEV and PHEV TCO beats ICE over 200,000 miles, with per-mile savings compounding through electricity prices and reduced service.

Key Points

Lifetime EV expenses, typically lower than ICE, due to cheaper electricity, reduced maintenance, and fewer repairs.

✅ BEV: $0.012/mi to 50k; $0.028/mi after; vs ICE up to $0.06/mi

✅ PHEV: $0.021/mi to 50k; $0.031/mi after; still below ICE

✅ Savings increase over 200k miles from fuel and service reductions

Electric vehicles are a relatively new technology, and the EV age is arriving ahead of schedule today. Even though we technically saw the first battery-powered vehicles more than 100 years ago, they haven’t really become viable transportation in the modern world until recently, and they are greener than ever in all 50 states as the grid improves.

As viable as they may now be, however, it still seems they’re unarguably more expensive than their conventional internal-combustion counterparts, prompting many to ask whether it’s time to buy an electric car today. Well, until now.

Lower maintenence costs and the lower price of electricity versus gasoline (see the typical cost to charge an electric vehicle in most regions) actually make electric cars much cheaper in the long run, despite their often higher purchase price, according to a new survey by Consumer Reports. The information was collected using annual reliability surveys conducted by CR in 2019 and 2020.

In the first 50,000 miles (80,500 km), battery electric vehicles cost just US$0.012 per mile for maintenence and repairs, while plug-in hybrid models bump that number up to USD$0.021. Compare these numbers to the typical USD$0.028 cost for internal combustion vehicles, and it becomes clear the more you drive, the more you will save, and across the U.S. plug-ins logged 19 billion electric miles in 2021 to prove the point. After 50,000 miles, the costs for BEV and PHEV vehicles is US$0.028 and US$0.031 respectively, while ICE vehicles jump to US$0.06 per mile.

To put it more practically, if you chose to buy a Model 3 instead of a BMW 330i, you’d see a total US$17,600 in savings over the lifetime of the vehicle, aligning with evidence that EVs are better for the planet and your budget as well, based on average driving. In the SUV sector, buying a Tesla Model Y instead of a Lexus crossover would save US$13,400 (provided the former’s roof doesn’t fly off) and buying a Nissan Leaf over a Honda Civic would save US$6,000 over the lifetime of the vehicles.

CR defines the vehicle’s “lifetime” as 200,000 miles (320,000 km). Ergo the final caveat: while it sounds like driving electric means big savings, you might only see those returns after quite a long period of ownership, though some forecasts suggest that within a decade adoption will be nearly universal for many drivers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News