Solar Is Now 33% Cheaper Than Gas Power in US, Guggenheim Says

Canada 2023 Clean Energy Outlook highlights decarbonization, renewables, a net-zero grid by 2035, hydrogen, energy storage, EV mandates, carbon pricing, and critical minerals, aligning with IRA incentives and provincial policies to accelerate the transition.

Key Points

A concise overview of Canada's 2023 path to net-zero: renewables, clean grids, storage, EVs, and hydrogen.

✅ Net-zero electricity regulations target 2035

✅ Alberta leads PPAs and renewables via deregulated markets

✅ Tax credits boost storage, hydrogen, EVs, and critical minerals

The year 2022 may go down as the most successful one yet for climate action. It was marked by monumental shifts in energy policy from governments, two COP meetings and heightened awareness of the private sector's duty to act.

In the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was the largest federal legislation to tackle climate change, injecting $369 billion of tax credits and incentives for clean energy, Biden's EV agenda and carbon capture, energy storage, energy efficiency and research.

The European Union accelerated its green policies to transition away from fossil fuels and overhauled its carbon market. China and India made strides on clean energy and strengthened climate policies. The International Energy Agency made its largest revision yet as renewables continued to proliferate.

The U.S. ratified the Kigali Amendment, one of the strongest global climate policies to date.

Canada was no different. The 2022 Fall Economic Statement was announced to respond to the IRA, offering an investment tax credit for renewables, clean technology and green hydrogen alongside the Canada Growth Fund. The federal government also proposed a 2035 deadline for clean electrical grids and a federal zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate for light-duty vehicles.

With the momentum set, more action is promised in 2023: Canadian governments are expected to unveil firmer details for the decarbonization of electricity grids to meet 2035 deadlines; Alberta is poised to be an unlikely leader in clean energy.

Greater attention will be put on energy storage and critical minerals. Even an expected economic downturn is unlikely to stop the ball that is rolling.

Shane Doig, the head of energy and natural resources at KPMG in Canada, said events in 2022 demonstrated the complexity of the energy transformation and opened “a more balanced conversation around how Canada can transition to a lower carbon footprint, whilst balancing the need for affordable, readily available electricity.”

Expect further developments on clean electricity
2023 shapes up as a crucial year for Canada’s clean electricity grid.

The federal government announced it will pursue a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 under the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) framework.

It requires mass renewable and clean energy adoption, phasing out fossil fuel electricity generation, rapid electrification and upgrading transmission and storage while accommodating growth in electricity demand.

The first regulations for consultation are expected early in 2023. The plans will lay out pollution regulations and costs for generating assets to accelerate clean energy adoption, according to Evan Pivnick, the clean energy program manager of Clean Energy Canada.

The Independent Energy System Operator of Ontario (IESO) recently published a three-part report suggesting a net-zero conversion for Ontario could cost $400 billion over 25 years, even as the province weighs an electricity market reshuffle to keep up with increasing electricity demand.

Power Utility released research by The Atmospheric Fund that suggests Ontario could reach a net-zero grid by 2035 across various scenarios, despite ongoing debates about Ontario's hydro plan and rate design.

Dale Beguin, executive vice president at the Canadian Climate Institute, said in 2023 he hopes to see more provincial regulators and governments send “strong signals to the utilities” that a pathway to net-zero is realistic.

He recounted increasing talk from investors in facilities such as automotive plants and steel mills who want clean electricity guarantees before making investments. “Clean energy is a comparative advantage,” he said, which puts the imperative on organizations like the IESO to lay out plans for bigger, cleaner and flexible grids.

Beguin and Pivnick said they are watching British Columbia closely because of a government mandate letter setting a climate-aligned energy framework and a new mandate for the British Columbia Utilities Commission. Pivnick said there may be lessons to be drawn for other jurisdictions.

Alberta’s unlikely rise as a clean energy leader
Though Alberta sits at the heart of Canada’s oil and gas industry and at the core of political resistance to climate policy, it has emerged as a front runner in renewables adoption.

Billion of dollars for wind and solar projects have flowed into Alberta, as the province charts a path to clean electricity with large-scale projects.

Pivnick said an “underappreciated story” is how Alberta leaned into renewables through its “unique market.” Alberta leads in renewables and power purchase agreements because of its deregulated electricity market.

Unlike most provinces, Alberta enables companies to go directly to solar and wind developers to strike deals, a model reinforced under Kenney's electricity policies in recent years, rather than through utilities. It incentivizes private investment, lowers costs and helps meet increasing demand, which Nagwan Al-Guneid, the director of the Business Renewables Centre - Canada at the Pembina Institute, said is “is the No. 1 reason we see this boom in renewables in Alberta.”

Beguin noted Alberta’s innovative ‘reverse auctions,’ where the province sets a competitive bidding process to provide electricity. It ended up making electricity “way cheaper” due to the economic competitiveness of renewables, while Alberta profited and added clean energy to its grid.

In 2019, the Business Renewables Centre-Canada established a target of 2 GW of renewable energy deals by 2025. The target was exceeded in 2022, which led to a revised goal for 10 GW of renewables by 2030.

Al-Guneid wants to see other jurisdictions help more companies buy renewables. She does not universally prescribe deregulation, however, as other mechanisms such as sleeving exist.

Alberta will update its industrial carbon pricing in 2023, requiring large emitters to pay $65 per tonne of carbon dioxide. The fee climbs $15 per tonne each year until it reaches $175 per tonne in 2030. Al-Guneid said as the tax increases, demand for renewable energy certificates will also increase in Alberta.

Pivnick noted Alberta will have an election in 2023, which could have ramifications for energy policy.

Batteries and EV leadership
Manufacturing clean energy equipment, batteries and storage requires enormous quantities of minerals. With the 2022 Fall Economic Statement and the Critical Minerals Strategy, Canada is taking important steps to lead on this front.

Pivnick pointed to battery supply chain investments in Ontario and Quebec as part of Canada’s shift from “a fuel-based (economy) to a materials-based economy” to provide materials necessary for wind turbines and solar panels. The Strategy showed an understanding Canada has a major role to meet its allies’ needs for critical minerals, whether it’s the resources or supply chains.

There is also an opportunity for Canada to forge ahead on energy storage. The Fall Economic Statement proposes a 30 per cent tax credit for investments into energy storage. Pivnick suggested Canada invest further into research and development to explore innovations like green hydrogen and pump storage.

Doig believes Canada is “well poised” for batteries, both in terms of the technology and sustainable mining of minerals like cobalt, lithium and copper. He is bullish for Canada’s electrification based on its clean energy use and increased spending on renewables and energy storage.

He said the federal ZEV mandate will drive increased demand for the power, utilities, and oil and gas industries to respond.

The majority of gas stations, which are owned by the nation’s energy industry, will need to be converted into EV charging stations.

Offsetting a recession 
One challenge will be a poor economic forecast in the near term. A short "technical recession" is expected in 2023.

Inflation remains stubbornly high, which has forced the Bank of Canada to hike interest rates. The conditions will not leave any industry unscathed, but Doig said Canada's decarbonization is unlikely to be halted.

“Whilst a recession would slow things down, the concern around energy security definitely helps offset that concern,” he said.

Amid rising trade frictions and tariff threats, energy security is top of mind for governments and private organizations, accelerating the shift to renewables.

Doig said there is a general feeling a recession would be short-lived, meaning it would be unlikely to impact long-term projects in hydrogen, liquified natural gas, carbon capture and wind and solar.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Electricity Decarbonization Costs indicate challenging greenhouse gas reductions across a fragmented grid, with wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas tradeoffs, significant GDP impacts, and Net Zero targets constrained by intermittency and limited interties.

Key Points

Costs to cut power CO2 via wind, solar, gas, and nuclear, considering grid limits, intermittency, and GDP impacts.

✅ Alberta model: eliminate coal; add wind, solar, gas; 26-40% CO2 cuts

✅ Nuclear option enables >75% cuts at higher but feasible system costs

✅ National costs 1-2% GDP; reserves, transmission, land, and waste not included

Along with many western developed countries, Canada has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40–45 percent by 2030 from 2005 emissions levels, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

This is a huge challenge that, when considered on a global scale, will do little to stop climate change because emissions by developing countries are rising faster than emissions are being reduced in developed countries. Even so, the potential for achieving emissions reduction targets is extremely challenging as there are questions as to how and whether targets can be met and at what cost. Because electricity can be produced from any source of energy, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and any combustible material, climate change policies have focused especially on nations’ electricity grids, and in Canada cleaning up electricity is viewed as critical to meeting climate pledges.

Canada’s electricity grid consists of ten separate provincial grids that are weakly connected by transmission interties to adjacent grids and, in some cases, to electricity systems in the United States. At times, these interties are helpful in addressing small imbalances between electricity supply and demand so as to prevent brownouts or even blackouts, and are a source of export revenue for provinces that have abundant hydroelectricity, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec.

Due to generally low intertie capacities between provinces, electricity trade is generally a very small proportion of total generation, though electricity has been a national climate success in recent years. Essentially, provincial grids are stand alone, generating electricity to meet domestic demand (known as load) from the lowest cost local resources.

Because climate change policies have focused on electricity (viz., wind and solar energy, electric vehicles), and Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA, this study employs information from the Alberta electricity system to provide an estimate of the possible costs of reducing national CO2 emissions related to power generation. The Alberta system serves as an excellent case study for examining the potential for eliminating fossil-fuel generation because of its large coal fleet, favourable solar irradiance, exceptional wind regimes, and potential for utilizing BC’s reservoirs for storage.

Using a model of the Alberta electricity system, we find that it is infeasible to rely solely on renewable sources of energy for 100 percent of power generation—the costs are prohibitive. Under perfect conditions, however, CO2 emissions from the Alberta grid can be reduced by 26 to 40 percent by eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy such as wind and solar, and gas, but by more than 75 percent if nuclear power is permitted. The associated costs are estimated to be some $1.4 billion per year to reduce emissions by at most 40 percent, or $1.9 billion annually to reduce emissions by 75 percent or more using nuclear power (an option not considered feasible at this time).

Based on cost estimates from Alberta, and Ontario’s experience with subsidies to renewable energy, and warnings that the switch from fossil fuels to electricity could cost about $1.4 trillion, the costs of relying on changes to electricity generation (essentially eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy sources and gas) to reduce national CO2 emissions by about 7.4 percent range from some $16.8 to $33.7 billion annually. This constitutes some 1–2 percent of Canada’s GDP.

The national estimates provided here are conservative, however. They are based on removing coal-fired power from power grids throughout Canada. We could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset—available wind and solar energy might be lower than indicated by the available data. To take this into account, a reserve market is required, but the costs of operating such a capacity market were not included in the estimates provided in this study. Also ignored are the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, environmental and human health costs, and the life-cycle costs of using intermittent renewable sources of energy, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous wastes from solar panels and wind turbines.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

EV battery supply strategies weigh in-house cell manufacturing against supplier contracts, optimizing costs, scale, and supply-chain resilience for electric vehicles. Automakers like Tesla, GM-LG Chem, VW-Northvolt, and Ford balance gigafactories, joint ventures, and procurement risks.

Key Points

How automakers secure EV battery cells by balancing cost, scale, tech risk, and supply-chain control to meet demand.

✅ In-source cells via gigafactories, JVs, and proprietary chemistries

✅ Contract with LG Chem, Panasonic, CATL, SKI to diversify supply

✅ Manage costs, logistics, IP, and technology obsolescence risks

Auto makers, pumping billions of dollars into developing electric cars, are now facing a critical inflection point as they decide whether to get more involved with manufacturing the core batteries or buy them from others.

Batteries are one of an electric vehicle’s most expensive components, accounting for between a quarter and a third of the car’s value. Driving down their cost is key to profitability, executives say.

But whereas the internal combustion engine traditionally has been engineered and built by auto makers themselves, battery production for electric cars is dominated by Asian electronics and chemical firms, such as LG Chem Ltd. and Panasonic Corp. , and newcomers like China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co.

California, the U.S.’s largest car market, said last month it would end the sale of new gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger cars by 2035, putting pressure on the auto industry to accelerate its shift to electric vehicles in the coming years.

The race to lock in supplies for electric cars has auto makers taking varied paths, with growing Canada-U.S. collaboration across supply chains.

While most make the battery pack, a large metal enclosure often lining the bottom of the car, they also need the cells that are bundled together to form the core electricity storage.

Tesla several years ago opened its Gigafactory in Nevada to make batteries with Panasonic, which in the shared space would produce cells for the packs. The electric-car maker wanted to secure production specifically for its own models and lower manufacturing and logistics costs.

Now it is looking to in-source more of that production.

While Tesla will continue to buy cells from Panasonic and other suppliers, it is also working on its own cell technology and production capabilities, aiming for cheaper, more powerful batteries to ensure it can keep up with demand for its cars, said Chief Executive Elon Musk last month.

Following Tesla’s lead, General Motors Co. and South Korea’s LG Chem are putting $2.3 billion into a nearly 3-million-square-foot factory in Lordstown, Ohio, highlighting opportunities for Canada to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot as supply chains evolve, which GM says will eventually produce enough battery cells to outfit hundreds of thousands of cars each year.

In Europe, Volkswagen AG is taking a similar path, investing about $1 billion in Swedish battery startup Northvolt AB, including some funding to build a cell-manufacturing plant in Salzgitter, Germany, as part of a joint venture, and in North America, EV assembly deals in Canada are putting it in the race as well.

Others like Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are steering clear of manufacturing their own cells, with executives saying they prefer contracting with specialized battery makers.

Supply-chain disruptions, including lithium shortages, have already challenged some new model launches and put projects at risk, auto makers say.

For instance, Ford and VW have agreements in place with SK Innovation to supply battery cells for future electric-vehicle models. The South Korean company is building a factory in Georgia to help meet this demand, but a fight over trade secrets has put the plant’s future in jeopardy and could disrupt new model launches, both auto makers have said in legal filings.

GM executives say the risk of relying on suppliers has pushed them to produce their own battery cells, albeit with LG Chem.

“We’ve got to be able to control our own destiny,” said Ken Morris, GM’s vice president of electric vehicles.

Bringing the manufacturing in house will give the company more control over the raw materials it purchases and the battery-cell chemistry, Mr. Morris said.

But establishing production, even in a joint venture, is a costly proposition, and it won’t necessarily ensure a timely supply of cells. There are also risks with making big investments on one battery technology because a breakthrough could make it obsolete.

Ford cites those factors in deciding against a similar investment for now.

The company sees the industry’s conventional model of contracting with independent suppliers to build parts as better suited to its battery-cell needs, Ford executive Hau Thai-Tang told analysts in August.

“We have the competitive tension with dealing with multiple suppliers, which allows us to drive the cost down,” Mr. Thai-Tang said, adding that the company expects to pay prices for cells in line with GM and Tesla.

Meanwhile, Ford can leave the capital-intensive task of conducting the research and setting up manufacturing facilities to the battery companies, Mr. Thai-Tang said.

Germany’s Daimler has tried both strategies.

The car company made its own lithium-ion cells through a subsidiary until 2015. But the capital required to scale up was better spent elsewhere, said Ola Källenius, Daimler’s chief executive officer.

The auto maker instead signed long-term supply agreements with Asian companies like Chinese battery-maker CATL and Farasis Energy (Ganzhou) Co., which Daimler invested in last year.

The company has said it is spending roughly $23.6 billion on purchase agreements but keeping its battery research in-house.

“Let’s rather put that capital into what we do best, cars,” Mr. Källenius said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Arvato Ontario Solar Power Plant advances sustainability with rooftop photovoltaic panels, PPA financing, and green electricity, generating 800,000 kWh annually to cut logistics emissions, reduce energy costs, and support carbon-neutral supply chain operations.

Key Points

A rooftop PV system under a PPA, supplying low-cost green power to Arvato's Ontario, CA distribution center.

✅ 1,160 panels produce 800,000 kWh of renewable power yearly

✅ PPA model avoids upfront costs and lowers electricity rates

✅ Cuts center emissions by 72%; 45% roof coverage

Arvato continues to invest consistently in the sustainability of its distribution centers. To this end, the first solar power plant in the focus market has now been commissioned on the roof of the distribution center in Ontario, California. The solar power plant has 1,160 solar panels and generates more than 800,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of green electricity annually. This reduces electricity costs and, with advances in battery storage, further cuts the logistics center's greenhouse gas emissions. Previously, the international supply chain and e-commerce service provider had converted five other distribution centers in the USA to green electricity.

The project started as early as November 2019 with an intensive site investigation. An extensive catalogue of measures and criteria had to be worked through to install and commission the solar power plant on the roof system. After a rigorous process involving numerous stakeholders, the new solar modules were installed in August 2022, similar to utility-scale deployments like the largest solar array in Washington seen recently. However, further approvals and permits were required before the solar system could be officially commissioned, a common step for solar power plants worldwide. Once official permission for the operation was granted, the switch could be flipped in February 2023, and production of environmentally friendly solar electricity could begin.

The photovoltaic system is operated under a Purchase Power Agreement (PPA), a model widely used in corporate renewable energy projects today. This unique financing mechanism is available in twenty-six U.S. states, including California. While a third-party developer installs, owns and operates the solar panels, Arvato purchases the electricity generated. This allows companies in the U.S. to support clean energy projects while buying low-cost electricity without having to finance upfront costs. "The PPA and the resulting benefits were quite critical to the success of this project," says Christina Greenwell, Microsoft AOC F&L Client Services Manager at Arvato, who managed the project from start to finish. "It allows us to reduce our electricity costs while supporting Bertelsmann's ambitious goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030."

The 1,160 solar panels were added to an existing system of 920 panels owned by the logistics center's landlord. In total, the panels now cover 45 percent of the roof space at the Ontario distribution center. The emissions generated by the distribution center are now reduced by 72 percent with the new solar panels and clean power generation. As Bertelsmann plans to switch all its sites worldwide to 100 percent green electricity, renewable energy certificates will, as seen when Bimbo Canada signed agreements to offset 100 percent of its electricity for its operations, offset the remaining emissions.

"The new solar power plant is a significant step on our path to carbon neutrality and demonstrates our commitment to finding innovative solutions that reduce our carbon footprint," said Mitat Aydindag, President of North America at Arvato. "All employees at the site are pleased that our Ontario distribution center is now a pioneer and is providing effective support in achieving our ambitious climate goal in 2030."

Similar facility-level efforts include the Bright Feeds Berlin solar project underscoring momentum across industrial operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US EV Battery Minerals Strategy prioritizes critical minerals with allies, lithium and copper sourcing, battery recycling, and domestic processing, leveraging the Development Finance Corporation to strengthen EV supply chains and reduce reliance on China.

Key Points

A US plan to secure critical minerals with allies, boost recycling, and expand domestic processing for EV batteries.

✅ DFC financing for allied lithium and copper projects

✅ Battery recycling to diversify critical mineral supply

✅ Domestic processing with strong environmental standards

The United States must work with allies to secure the minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries, addressing pressures on cobalt reserves that could influence supply, and process them domestically in light of environmental and other competing interests, the White House said on Tuesday.

The strategy, first reported by Reuters in late May, will include new funding to expand international investments in electric vehicles (EV) metal projects through the U.S. Development Finance Corporation, as well as new efforts to boost supply from EV battery recycling initiatives.

The U.S. has been working to secure minerals from allied countries, including Canada and Finland, with projects such as Alberta lithium development showing potential. The 250-page report outlining policy recommendations mentioned large lithium supplies in Chile and Australia, the world's two largest producers of the white battery metal.

President Joe Biden's administration will also launch a working group to identify where minerals used in EV batteries and other technologies can be produced and processed domestically.

Securing enough copper, lithium and other raw materials to make EV batteries, amid lithium supply concerns heightened by recent disruptions, is a major obstacle to Biden’s aggressive EV adoption plans, with domestic mines facing extensive regulatory hurdles and environmental opposition.

The White House acknowledged China's role as the world's largest processor of EV metals and said it would expand efforts, including a 100% EV tariff on certain imports, to lessen that dependency.

"The United States cannot and does not need to mine and process all critical battery inputs at home. It can and should work with allies and partners to expand global production and to ensure secure global supplies," it said in the report.

The White House also said the Department of the Interior and others agencies will work to identify gaps in mine permitting laws to ensure any new production "meets strong standards" in terms of both the environment and community input.

The report noted Native American opposition to Lithium Americas Corp's (LAC.TO) Thacker Pass lithium project in Nevada, as well as plans by automaker Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) to produce its own lithium.

The steps come after Biden, who has made fighting climate change and competing with China centerpieces of his agenda, ordered a 100-day review of gaps in supply chains in key areas, including EVs.

Democrats are pushing aggressive climate goals, as Canada EV manufacturing accelerates in parallel, to have a majority of U.S.-manufactured cars be electric by 2030 and every car on the road to be electric by 2040.

As part of the recommendations from four executive branch agencies, Biden is being advised to take steps to restore the country's strategic mineral stockpile and expand funding to map the mineral resources available domestically.

Some of those steps would require the support of Congress, where Biden's fellow Democrats have only slim majorities.

The Energy Department already has $17 billion in authority through its Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program to fund some investments, and is also launching a lithium-battery workforce initiative to build critical skills.

The program’s administrators will focus on financing battery manufacturers and companies that refine, recycle and process critical minerals, the White House said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Gas Car Ban 2035 signals a shift to electric vehicles, raising grid reliability concerns, charging demand, and renewable energy challenges across solar, wind, and storage, amid rolling blackouts and carbon-free power mandates.

Key Points

An order ending new gasoline car sales by 2035 in California, accelerating EV adoption and pressuring the power grid.

✅ 25% EV fleet could add 232.5 GWh/day charging demand by 2040

✅ Solar and wind intermittency strains nighttime home charging

✅ Grid upgrades, storage, and load management become critical

On September 23, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that will ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars in the Golden State by 2035. Ignoring the hard lessons of this past summer, when California’s solar- and wind-reliant electric grid underwent rolling blackouts, Newsom now adds a huge new burden to the grid in the form of electric vehicle charging, underscoring the need for a much bigger grid to meet demand. If California officials follow through and enforce Newsom’s order, the result will be a green new car version of a train wreck.

In parallel, the state is moving on fleet transitions, allowing electric school buses only from 2035, which further adds to charging demand.

Let’s run some numbers. According to Statista, there are more than 15 million vehicles registered in California. Per the U.S. Department of Energy, there are only 256,000 electric vehicles registered in the state—just 1.7 percent of all vehicles, a share that will challenge state power grids as adoption grows.

Using the Tesla Model3 mid-range model as a baseline for an electric car, you’ll need to use about 62 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of power to charge a standard range Model 3 battery to full capacity. It will take about eight hours to fully charge it at home using the standard Tesla NEMA 14-50 charger, a routine that has prompted questions about whether EVs could crash the grid by households statewide.

Now, let’s assume that by 2040, five years after the mandate takes effect, also assuming no major increase in the number of total vehicles, California manages to increase the number of electric vehicles to 25 percent of the total vehicles in the state. If each vehicle needs an average of 62 kilowatt-hours for a full charge, then the total charging power required daily would be 3,750,000 x 62 KWh, which equals 232,500,000 KWh, or 232.5 gigawatt-hours (GWh) daily.

Utility-scale California solar electric generation according to the energy.ca.gov puts utility-scale solar generation at about 30,000 GWh per year currently. Divide that by 365 days and we get 80 GWh/day, predicted to double, to 160 GWh /day. Even if we add homeowner rooftop solar, and falling prices for solar and home batteries in the wake of blackouts, about half the utility-scale, at 40 GWh/day we come up to 200 GW/h per day, still 32 GWh short of the charging demand for a 25% electric car fleet in California. Even if rooftop solar doubles by 2040, we are at break-even, with 240GWh of production during the day.

Bottom-line, under the most optimistic best-case scenario, where solar operates at 100% of rated capacity (it seldom does), it would take every single bit of the 2040 utility-scale solar and rooftop capacity just to charge the cars during the day. That leaves nothing left for air conditioning, appliances, lighting, etc. It would all go to charging the cars, and that’s during the day when solar production peaks.

But there’s a much bigger problem. Even a grade-schooler can figure out that solar energy doesn’t work at night, when most electric vehicles will be charging at homes, even as some officials look to EVs for grid stability through vehicle-to-grid strategies. So, where does Newsom think all this extra electric power is going to come from?

The wind? Wind power lags even further behind solar power. According to energy.gov, as of 2019, California had installed just 5.9 gigawatts of wind power generating capacity. This is because you need large amounts of land for wind farms, and not every place is suitable for high-return wind power.

In 2040, to keep the lights on with 25 percent of all vehicles in California being electric, while maintaining the state mandate requiring all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045, California would have to blanket the entire state with solar and wind farms. It’s an impossible scenario. And the problem of intermittent power and rolling blackouts would become much worse.

And it isn’t just me saying this. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees. In a letter sent by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to Gavin Newsom on September 28, Wheeler wrote:

“[It] begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today.

“The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences.”

California’s green new car wreck looms large on the horizon. Worse, can you imagine electric car owners’ nightmares when California power companies shut off the power for safety reasons during fire season? Try evacuating in your electric car when it has a dead battery.

Gavin Newsom’s “no more gasoline cars sold by 2035” edict isn’t practical, sustainable, or sensible, much like the 2035 EV mandate in Canada has been criticized by some observers. But isn’t that what we’ve come to expect with any and all of these Green New Deal-lite schemes?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News