Electric vehicles can fight climate change, but they’re not a silver bullet: U of T study

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ Manufacturing parity across segments from 2027

✅ TCO favors EVs; charging networks expand globally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UCS EV emissions study shows electric vehicles produce lower life-cycle emissions than gasoline cars across all states, factoring tailpipe, grid mix, power plant sources, and renewable energy, delivering mpg-equivalent advantages nationwide.

Key Points

UCS study comparing EV and gas life-cycle emissions, finding EVs cleaner than new gas cars in every U.S. region.

✅ Average EV equals 93 mpg gas car on emissions.

✅ Cleaner than 50 mpg gas cars in 97% of U.S.

✅ Regional grid mix included: tailpipe to power plant.

One of the cautions cited by electric vehicle (EV) naysayers is that they merely shift emissions from the tailpipe to the local grid’s power source, implicating state power grids as a whole, and some charging efficiency claims get the math wrong, too. And while there is a kernel of truth to this notion—they’re indeed more benign to the environment in states where renewable energy resources are prevalent—the average EV is cleaner to run than the average new gasoline vehicle in all 50 states. 

That’s according to a just-released study conducted the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which determined that global warming emissions related to EVs has fallen by 15 percent since 2018. For 97 percent of the U.S., driving an electric car is equivalent or better for the planet than a gasoline-powered model that gets 50 mpg. 

In fact, the organization says the average EV currently on the market is now on a par, environmentally, with an internal combustion vehicle that’s rated at 93 mpg. The most efficient gas-driven model sold in the U.S. gets 59 mpg, and EV sales still trail gas cars despite such comparisons, with the average new petrol-powered car at 31 mpg.

For a gasoline car, the UCS considers a vehicle’s tailpipe emissions, as well as the effects of pumping crude oil from the ground, transporting it to a refinery, creating gasoline, and transporting it to filling stations. For electric vehicles, the UCS’ environmental estimates include both emissions from the power plants themselves, along with those created by the production of coal, natural gas or other fossil fuels used to generate electricity, and they are often mischaracterized by claims about battery manufacturing emissions that don’t hold up. 

Of course the degree to which an EV ultimately affects the atmosphere still varies from one part of the country to another, depending on the local power source. In some parts of the country, driving the average new gasoline car will produce four to eight times the emissions of the average EV, a fact worth noting for those wondering if it’s the time to buy an electric car today. The UCS says the average EV driven in upstate New York produces total emissions that would be equivalent to a gasoline car that gets an impossible 255-mpg. In even the dirtiest areas for generating electricity, EVs are responsible for as much emissions as a conventionally powered car that gets over 40 mpg.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK Petrol Shortages Drive EV Adoption as fuel crisis spurs electric vehicles, plug-in car demand, home charging, lower running costs, zero-emission mobility, ULEZ compliance, accelerating the shift from diesel to battery EVs.

Key Points

Fuel shortages push drivers to EVs, boosting inquiries and sales while highlighting the convenience of home charging.

✅ Surge in EV dealer inquiries and test drives

✅ Home charging avoids queues and fuel shortages

✅ Policy signals: ULEZ expansion, 2030 ICE ban

Sellers of plug-in vehicles say petrol shortages are driving people to adopt the new technology as the age of electric cars accelerates worldwide.

As petrol stations in parts of the UK started running out of fuel on Friday, business at Martin Miller’s electric car dealership in Guildford, Surrey, started soaring.

After what ended up being his company EV Experts busiest day ever, interest does not appear to be dying down. This week the diary is booked up with test drives and the business is low on stock amid supply constraints.

“People buy electric cars for environmental reasons, for cost-saving reasons and because the technology’s great, even though higher upfront prices remain a concern,” he said. “But Friday was one of those moments where people said, ‘Do you know what, this is a sign that we need to go electric’.”

While scenes of chaos play out at petrol stations across the country amid shortages, for many electric vehicle (EV) dealers the fuel crisis has led to an unexpected surge in inquiries and sales, even as some question an electric-car revolution narrative today.

EVA England, a non-profit representing new and prospective EV drivers, reports a rise in electric car inquiries and in interest at EV dealers, particularly in the last week.

“Saturday was bonkers but Friday even surpassed that, it was very strange,” said Miller, who founded his company four years ago. “I’ve now got trade-in cars with no petrol to move them.”

Along with existing factors such as the expansion of London’s ultra-low emission zone, the fuel crisis has proved to be another trigger point, he said. “People were using it as ‘this is the moment where I’m not going to put this off any longer’.”

The EV market is no longer the preserve of innovators and early adopters, he said, with the most popular models the Nissan Leaf, Volkswagen ID 3 and Jaguar I-Pace.

Ben Strzalko, the owner of Electric Cars UK in Leyland, Lancashire, said that as a small business it would take a few months to feel the knock-on effect of the fuel crisis on sales.

But every time there are problems with petrol or diesel, he said they acted as “one more tick for people making that transition to electric cars”.

He said “a lot of electric car owners will be chuffed to bits this last week” being able to plug in their cars at home. And as an EV driver himself, he admitted feeling a little smug as he drove past queues of 20 cars outside petrol stations over the weekend in his Tesla.

Matt Cleevely, the owner of Cleevely Electric Vehicles in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, which specialises in used EVs, had a surge of inquiries over the weekend and on Monday morning from customers citing the fuel crisis as a reason for switching to electric.

He expects enthusiasm to continue rising, with petrol shortages adding “fuel to the fire”.

Although he feels sorry for non-EV drivers who have been unable to get fuel, he said as an electric car owner it was “very nice” not to have to worry about where to get petrol at the weekend.

“It’s very convenient that we’ve been able to just fuel up on our driveway. It’s one of the biggest pros of having an electric vehicle.”

The National Franchised Dealers Association also said multiple dealers have reported a spike in EV enquiries since the start of the crisis.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders reported “bumper growth” in the sale of plug-in cars in July, reflecting broader global market growth in recent years, with battery electric vehicles comprising 9% of sales. Plug-in hybrids accounted for 8% of sales and hybrid electric vehicles nearly 12%. Also in July, more electric vehicles were registered than diesel for the second consecutive month.

The UK has pledged to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and of new hybrids by 2035, a timeline that aligns with expectations that within a decade most driving could be electric.

Warren Philips, the volunteer communities director at EVA England, said the tipping point for EVs had already been reached but the fuel crisis “underlines how electric cars could work for the majority of people”.

He added: “The interest is already there, this just adds to it. And going forward with things like Cop26, with the climate crisis, with the cost of fuel probably going to rise … people will start looking at electric cars where you just skip that entire step.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Investors exploit price volatility, peak-demand spreads.

✅ Utility-scale storage enhances ERCOT reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

USPS Electric Mail Trucks promise zero-emission delivery, lower lifecycle and maintenance costs, and cleaner air. Congressional funding in Build Back Better would modernize the EV fleet and expand charging infrastructure, improving public health nationwide.

Key Points

USPS Electric Mail Trucks are zero-emission delivery vehicles that cut costs, reduce pollution, and improve health.

✅ Lower lifetime fuel and maintenance costs vs gas trucks

✅ Cuts greenhouse gas and NOx emissions in communities

✅ Expands charging infrastructure via federal investments

The U.S. Postal Service faces serious challenges, with billions of dollars in annual losses and total mail volume continuing to decline. Meanwhile, Congress is constantly hamstringing the agency.

But now lawmakers have an opportunity to invest in the Postal Service in a way that would pay dividends for years to come: By electrifying the postal fleet.

Tucked inside the massive social spending and climate package lumbering through the Senate is money for new, cleaner postal delivery trucks. There’s a lot to like about electric postal trucks. They’d significantly improve Americans’ health while also slowing climate change. And it just makes sense for taxpayers over the long term; the Postal Service’s private sector competitors have already made similar investments, as EV adoption reaches an EV inflection point in the market. As Democrats weigh potential areas to cut in President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, this is one provision that should escape the knife.

To call the U.S. Postal Service’s current vehicles “clunkers” would be an understatement. These often decades-old trucks are famous for having no airbags, no air conditioning and a nasty habit of catching fire. So the Postal Service’s recent decision to buy 165,000 replacement trucks is basically a no-brainer. But the main question is whether they will run on electricity or gasoline.

Electric vehicles are newer to the market and still carry a higher sticker price, as seen with electric bus adoption in many cities. But that higher price buys concrete benefits, like lower lifetime fuel and maintenance costs and huge reductions in pollution. Government demand for electric trucks will also push private markets to create better, cheaper vehicles, directly benefiting consumers. So while buying electric postal trucks may be somewhat more costly at first, over the long term, failing to do so could be far costlier.

At some level, this is a straightforward business decision that the Postal Service’s competitors have already made. For instance, Amazon has already deployed some of the 100,000 electric vans it recently ordered, and FedEx has promised a fully electric ground fleet by 2040, while nonprofit investment in electric trucks is accelerating electrification at major ports. In a couple of decades, the Postal Service could be the only carrier still driving dirty gas guzzlers, buying expensive fuel and paying the higher maintenance costs that combustion engines routinely require. Consumers could flock to greener competitors.

Beyond these business advantages, zero-emission vehicles carry other big benefits for the public. The Postal Service recently calculated some of these benefits by estimating the climate harms that going all-electric would avoid, benefits that persist even where electricity generation still includes fossil-generated electricity in nearby grids. Its findings were telling: A fully electric fleet would prevent millions or tens of millions of dollars’ worth of climate-change-related harms to property and human health each year of the trucks’ lifetimes (and this is probably a considerable underestimate). The world leaders that recently gathered at the global climate summit in Glasgow encouraged exactly this type of transition toward low-carbon technologies.

A cleaner postal fleet would benefit Americans in many other important ways. In addition to warming the planet, tailpipe pollutants can have dire health consequences for the people who breathe in the fumes. Mail trucks traverse virtually every neighborhood in the country and often must idle in residential areas, so we all benefit when they stop emitting. And these localized harms are not distributed equally. Some parts of the country — too often, low-income communities of color — already have poor air quality. Removing pollution from dirty mail trucks will especially help these overburdened and underserved populations.

The government’s purchasing power also routinely inspires companies to devise better and cheaper ways to do business. Investments in aerospace technologies, for instance, have spilled over into consumer innovations, giving us GPS technologies and faster, more fuel-efficient passenger jets. Bulk demand for cleaner trucks could inspire similar innovations as companies clamor for government contracts, meaning we all could get cheaper and better green products like car batteries, and the American EV boom could further accelerate those gains.

Additionally, because postal trucks are virtually everywhere in the country, if they go electric, that would mean more charging stations and grid updates everywhere too, and better utility planning for truck fleets to ensure reliable service. Suddenly, that long road trip that discourages many would-be electric car buyers may be simpler, which could boost electric vehicle adoption.

White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy talks with EVgo CEO Cathy Zoi before the start of an event near an EVgo electric car charging station.
ENERGY

The case for electrifying the postal fleet is strong from both a business and a social standpoint. Indeed, even Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who was appointed during the Trump administration, supports it. But getting there is not so simple. Most private businesses could just borrow the money they need for this investment and pay it back with the long-term savings they would enjoy. But not the Postal Service. Thanks to its byzantine funding structure, it cannot afford electric trucks’ upfront costs unless Congress either provides the money or lets it borrow more. This is the primary reason it has not committed to making more than 10 percent of its fleet electric.

And that returns us to the Build Back Better legislation. The version passed by the House sets aside $7 billion to help the Postal Service buy electric mail trucks — enough to electrify the vast majority of its fleet by the end of the decade.

Biden has made expanding the use of electric vehicles a top priority, setting an ambitious goal of 100 percent zero-emission federal vehicle acquisitions by 2035, and new EPA emission limits aim to accelerate EV adoption. But Sen. Joe Manchin has expressed resistance to some of the climate-related subsidies in the legislation and is also eager to keep costs down. This provision, however, is worthy of the West Virginia Democrat’s support.

Most Americans would see — and benefit from — these trucks on a daily basis. And for an operation that got its start under Benjamin Franklin, it’s a crucial way to keep the Postal Service relevant.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News